The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1968/11/04PRESEIZT , _ CHAIRMANe Allred. - COMt~LC3SI0NERS: Camp, Farano (who entered the Council Chamber at 3:55 P.M,), Gauer, Mungall, Rowlaad. _ ABSENT - CONIl~lISSIONERS: Herbst. PRESINT - Aeaiatant City Attorneye John Dawaon City Engineer'Repreaentative: Jay Titus 0£fice Engineer: Arthur Daw Zoning Supez~visor: Ronald Thompeon Aseiatant Zoning Supervisor: Pat Brown Planning Commiseion Secretary: Ann Kreba INVOCATION - Reverettd Robin McDonald, Firat Presbyterian Church, gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commieaioner Mungall led in tha Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPRAVAI, OF - The Minutea of the meeting of October~, 1968 were approved as T~ Mi~~ sub~itted on motion,by Commieaioner Rowland, eeconded by Commisaioner Cemp, and MOTION CARRIED, VARIANCE N0. 2020 - CONTIN[TED PUBLIC HEABING, WII,LIAM F, AND NINA M. SIMNlONS9 c/o Milea & Asaociates,;Box 2123~ Anaheim, California, Owners; R. D. MILES, 800 South Brookhuret Street, Anaheim, Cal3fornia, Agent; requesting WAITTERS;OF (1) MAXIMUM pEFMITTED DISSANCE OF A LIVING UNIS FRpM A STANDARD STltEET AND (2) ADEQUATE VEHICULAR ACCESS FOR CITY SERVICE VEEIICLES, TO PERMIT A 70-UNIT APAR7MEN'P COMPLEK on property deecribed as: A parcel of approximately 2.0 acres of land conaiat- ing o£ two recorded lots and a portion of a third lot, having a combined frontage of approximately 296 Peet on the weat aide of Webater Avenue and a maximum depth of approxi- ma.tely 298 £eet, the northerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 500 feet south o£ the centerline of Orange Avenue, and further deacribed as 639-659 Webeter Avenue. Property preaently classified N-A, AGRICITLTURAL, ZONE. Sub3ect petition was continued from the meetinga of October 7 and 2~, 1968, to allow the petitioner time to sub~i.t revised plans indicating adequate vehicular acceas £or City service vehiclea. Aaeiatant Zotting Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location oP aubject property and the uaea eatabliahed in cloae proxtmity, noting that the property had a resolution of intent to R.-3, and•the petitioner was aeking waivera Por minimum dietance of living unita from a standasd atreat, minimnm ~open yard' ati~uctitral aetback, and adequate vehicular acceae for City aervice vehiclea; that the original plana had ittdicated 70 units - however, , the revised plana had been reduced to 60, with two-deck parking propose3 in the front area ' and an emergency vehicular drive approximately 18 feet in width, terminating at a cul-de- sac,wae now propoaed; that at the Interdepar~tmettta]. Committee meeting the ai;atement had been made that the reviaed plana were a vaet.improvement, but the Aaeistant Fire Chief was af the opinion that there was atill inadequate protection for the rear apartmenta and suggeated tktat either a periphery drive or a center cul-de-sac be required to gain acceas to theae rear units. Mr. R. D. Milea, agent £or the petitioner, appeared before the Commiesion and noted that when Variance No. 1987 wae conaidered before the Planning Comm3.esion, the Interdepartmental Coa~ittee had made no reference to a periph.eral drive for a similar lot as sub~ect property; that the petitioner then propoaed,aubterrattean parking, and the Fire Chief felt that there was an accesa that pulled straight through the lower drive, which would be adequate for fire protection purpoeea; tha.t in hie proposal there wae a cul-de-sac toward the rear unita with an 18-foot emergeneq drive, and theze was no reason to•have any other type of acceea 47.86 '~.;"'' ~'.' r~,,,.- -: ;.. . . . ' .._. ., .. . _ . .._ _ ,. ~,'~ ~`~~~~,. +.~-~u`'~,5~%n•~(',91`i<~,s~c c.` g17 '~~". ^5'*~,~i? 1 r?'!^ rxq,rcr a}~, ^~'.r~ °~,n :y,x~ ~r~ r `/ I _ .._ f ~'Si~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ' ~~ ,3 M2INTES, CITY PLANNING COMi~iISSION, Nonember Q, 1968 ~,g.~ ~ VARiANCE N0. 2020 - because the cul-:de-sac would be adequate for turning around; that Continued' he had preaented the plans to Chi.ef Springer and had received hia approval, and Aseietant Fire Chief Heying had also indicated a aimilar development had aleo been approved; that the propoaed devel- opment provided adequate acceaeibility for vehiclea~ and the concept of a periphery drive with subterranean paxking would create a hardahip in building deaign; and t;iat the original plana had indicated a 16-foot drive which he tll{~ught had been aoneidered adequate eince no mention had been made previously - however, the reviaed plana now indicated an 18-foot drine to the cul-de-sac. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition at thie hearing. THE HEARING WAS CIASED. The Commisaion reviewed the reviaed plana ea presented and inquired whether or not t~e waiver of adequate vehicular acceee for City vehicles wae now being obviated becauae o£ the.t~eviaed plans; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompaon adviaed the Co~i.eaion that in the opinion of the•Asaiatant Fire Chief, the new plan did not meet the regui.re- meat, and, therefore, thia waiver wae etill being requeeted. The Commiasion further ttoted that the waiver for the minimwn open yard atructural aetback was cottaidered inconsequential; however, the maxSmum dietance of a living uttit from a etandard atreet and adequate vehicular acceea for City aervice vehiclee were one and the same; that in most variancea there was no real hardahip demonatrated wh3.ch cou~.d not be redeaigned and provided for within the shape of the property; that the require- ment of a maximum oF 200 feet from a dedicated street could havs aome flexibility - however, the propoaed development rrea 25~ over that permitted; that the Coa~isaion might wieh to entertain the idea of two tranel lanea being provided to the cul-de-sac, no parking being permitted on the two travel lattes - thereby eolvi.ng the problem as to the adequacy for fire, trash and other public vehiclea to have acceea to the rear of the property, attd this, then, would keep faith with mar~y of the developere who had been required by the Planning Commiaeion to generally conform to the requiremettta uP peri- pheral drivea or cul-de-sac etreets. Commieeioner Rowland noted that if these conditione were met, he would £avorably cottaider the proposed petitiott. Mr. Thompeon noted that the petitioner had referred to the apartment complex to the eouth, on the west aide of Webster Avenue, which had beett denied by the Plana'ng Commiasion snd approved by the City Council; that the reclasaification petition on the T:abater A-renue properties apecified the maximum of 18 dwelling unite per net residential acre o_ ~u~ld- ing aite, and aince aome type of a precedent had been aet by approval o£ a heavier denaity by the City Council, the Commisaiott might wiah to reco~end to the City Council that the reeolution of intent be amended to permit fliture development with a density no•.; being considered and previously approved. Aeaiatant City Attorney John Daweon adviaed the Commiasion that they could require the two travel lanes; however, the police could not control parking on private acceseways. Commiaeioner Rowland then noted that if this cou].d not be enforced as to maintaining the travel lanes without parking, aubject petition ahould be denied. Mr. Thompeon noted that aeveral R-3 developmente had been approved wherein etreete had been developed; however, they wera not dedicated, and the police could not enforce any regulations on private streets. Co~iaeioner Camp then inquired of Mr. Dawsott whether or not making this a requir~ent o£ the variance it could ttot be en£orced by the Zoning Enforcement OfPicer. Mr. Dawsott noted that he did not ;mow of any method by which thie could be enforced by the Zoning Enforcement OfPicer since City aervicea could not be deprived; that from a practical standpoint, it could work out, but the police could not enforee this, and it would be primarily a~ob for the 7oning Ettforcement 0£Ficer. Mr• Camp then noted for comparison - if an apartment development had a variance for a certain type of traeh storage asea which wae conatructed and later e~iminated, would the trash be collected; whereupon Mr. Dawaon stat9d that the trash people would not collect the traeh unleae~ the development met the requirementa - therefore, iP the Commis- aion atill coneidered requiring no parking in the emergency drive, the Zoning Ebforcement Of£icer would have to be respotteible for this. Mr. Thompeon, in reaponse to Commt.ssion queationing relative to whether or not conditione of approval could be enforced by the Zotting Eli£orcement Officer on private streets and acceaeways, etated the only method o~ posaible enforcement would be contacting the manager ~:,:. .r~i,w...: ~ ~'~""°'!r-~' - - ~. "t,. * ~ - - ;~ ', ti. y .u~:~ .z~..~~,~,-.,..,,,,,., - . -. _y i s ~r ~^C ~ ~ °4 x > ~ Y s ~~ .. 3;~~ W ~ srl ~f~ it. ~5t '~14,~~ 4~~k,fz t~t t 4;,t ~~R e c~r~ bt U~ T~L~, M' i~s rw ~~e e~ - J<i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ MIN[TTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November l~, 1968 !~].88 VARIAN(lE-NO• 2020 - o£ the apartment development and requesting t7~a} +~Le&e ve2iicles (Ccntinued) be removed.since it was a zoning violatiott asd co~2zt ba proaecuted as a miadameanor. Co~i.aeioner Rowland noted that if the Meldd?lriud ~ee;;er par~~~~ lo~ ~:ould clear aisles, he could aee no reason w~y t,he : Commiseion i.s appro~ring ~,~,~st:Et~~n ~c'uld not eatablish aimilar regulations on' priv~e,t~a° streets, and if a condit3c•n a~ a~proval of the •aariance : i~rere deeigaed to deaignate Lheee .:!:cesaways ae being uaed s:tie~l~zaively for public safety axad .£ire ven~cies, 3t woula t~e the requirement of the ;progerlZ• owner to main#ain the acceaeway'free and clear for fire proteetion; otherwir~e, the F~roperty would be in jeopa~,~y ao to fire insi:sance. ~ Commi.aeioner Rp;r3and offered Reaolution No. PC68•-319 and mnved for ita passage and adop- ~ ;,ion, aeconded by Commieeioner Mungall, to gresnt Petitio:??: i',or Varience No. 20~~, in partM denyizg waiver of the adequate vehicular access f'or City s~arvice vehicles, e;7bject to v~i,d3tions, and a flu~ther cottdition that the petiti.oner provide for an emerg~~ncy drive ha~+iag two travel lanes of 12 £eet each whieh ehall remairi uublocked at all tinea, with no w_Attended behi,~les being parked, sai3 drive to exten%3 to the cul-ds-sa~ proposed to 'Che xea.^ portion of the proparty, and that said driva can be uaed oniy for emergency :~ehic:lers and traBh trucke or cammer.aial vehicles, P•u..+ch a3 noving vans. (See Fieaol+st3.r~n Boc~s,'i On roll call the foregoing reaolution wae passed by tbe following vote: a1'ESs COA4II~SIONERS: . A~.].red, Camp, Gauer, Mungal7., Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CAMMISSIONERS: Fara.no, Herbat. Commisaioner Camp left the Council Chamber at ?.:/.0 P.M. ~~ ~~~PM~`1T PLAI~ i10. 101 - PUBLIC HEARING. Area DF,velopmen; Plan No. 101 initiated t,T the Ple.~iug Qo~isaion; Varia.nc~ No. 2027 initiated by the C:Lt VARIANCE N0: 2027 y Council, 20Q Eaet I,incr~ln Avenus,_ Anaheim, California. TENTATIVE MAP OF . A~ ~E~1F~OPM~!iT 2'LAN:, T~ ~N,~ID'~'° CIRCULATION AND ACCESS ,.~'t',R TS.~ TRACT . N0. 6717 A2iEA. NOR?'H OF' Bltiv'T:1 ANA CANYON ROAD BETWEEN , RE(FISION N0 2 MAU;:IE LANE ON THE WEST AND It++IPF~&IAj, HIGH4,TAY . ON fir7E EAST. VARI.~NCE P.EQUFST: WAIVER OF MINIMUM I,pT AREA [~ATD IAT WIDTH TO PERMIT 52 ONE-FAI~ffLY R~SIDENTIAL IATS on property deacribed as: An irregularly shaped parcel of appror.imatel y 9.8 acree, having a frontage of appraximately 1,223 feet on the north aide of old Santa Axia Cattyon Road anid a maximum depth o: approxtmatsly 567 Seet. +he easterl bouttd f y ary o said parcel being agproxi.mately 270 ~eet weat oP Imperial Highwa ae meas d ~ y, ure alott~¢ Sattta Ar,a.Canyon Road, and flu•ther described ae 7'ract No. 6717. Property preaently claeaified R.-l~, AGRICOLTURAY,, ZONE. TENTATIVE TRACT RFQUEST: ~EVIIAPER: HIRSCO CORpORATION, 2021 East 4th Street, uuite 108, 5ania Ana, Calif~~rnia. ENGINEEEt: ANh~9I, ENGINEERING CAMP;~ivi, 222 Fast 'LincoZn Avexiue, Ax~heis, Ca1lf.orr3e; propoaing the r~ubdivision oY sub~eci property into 52 Iiri zoned lota. Sub~ect tentative tract was cantinued from the meetings of Auguat 26 and October 7, 196B, to allow t3me to work out accesa p~:bleme. Asaoc?.ate Planuer Marvin KriE,ger reviewad Area Development Plan No. 101 (dotailed copy on file itt the offices of +,he Developm.ont Servicee Department, Planning Diviaion) and revi~ewed the tao exhibita - Exhibit "E~~~ utilizing the exiating old Santa Ana Canyon Road cul-de-saced at ita eastern terminua with e~ one-way 3ngreas from Imperial Highwa~, said sYsbem poxmitting accesa from Imperia~l FIi~hway but no~ to Imperial Highway, and allowing any of the four_parcele tiia pgportunity to uevelop individua].ly; furthermore, utilizing tne exiating Maude Lane temporary accesa point for a.:Ll four parcels until such tima as Accesa Point 2To. 5 was acYuallg developed, a; wh3ch t3me it would be eloaed at Santa Ana Oanyon Road. F~lu•thermore, the circulation syatem as Etuwn on E~rh3bii ~~A~~ had the verbal approval of the State Division of.'Iiighways snd the City of Anaheim Traffic Ehgineer. Mr. Krieger f~rth~:r noted that Exhibit d~~ would abaxidpn old Santa Ana Canyon Road and require development of a fron'aage road and I~ecesa Point Nu. 5 at the ti~ne of the develop- ment of any of the £our separt~te land parcelag tnat the proposal would not allow the C-1 c ,~ '~ .+~ J~~. n, ~ r° ,~`°'+ ~ i~ ~"`.'~~ 1`~Z ~ ~ "'''' Cacy~ , 9 ~ ~~ z~et i x ~ f ~ 1 F F . 3 r n 3~ t :i ~ - - .. ."_ ___" _ _ '.. ._ .. .~. . . , . ~ ' ' ~ . . . . . - ~ ~ ~~ . . ;!:~ ' ! MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COI~IISSION, November 4, 19(~g ~g9 . . ` , ` AREA DEVEI~OPMENT ' PLAN N0: 101 - paroel eny acceee from Imperial Highway nor wotild it be in compliance with~ths establiehed.policy of requirin an f - I r~~~~ ~• 2~27 g y rontage road to be at leaet 300 feet £rom'Santa Ana Canyon Road where it etttera said exprese- way,.in order to permit traffic t t F, ~ o en er and leave the expreesway at right angles. .:, ) TENTATIYE MAP OF j ~n~~T N~• 5717, tiEV7SI0Ii NU. 2 Mr. 3~rieger then noted that the ataff recommended Exhibit "A" be adopted ae part of Area Dev l ~ ~'Continued) e opment Platt No. 101. ~ i The Commieaion inquired of OfPice Fhgineer Arthur Daw whether or ttot 'he Ehgineering Department wae co id i k "' ~,q ~ na er ng nuckles as propoaed on Exhibit "A", or wheouer or not they would be following through with their intent of aboliahing theae. `~'°~ ~ffice Enginesr Arthur Daw aF,?ieed the Commiesion that thia wae on],p indi,cated if the Y`' r~,ad ~eedsd it;-however, a regular radiue could be provided. Et ;; -~ Mr. Krieg~r +~.hei1 atated that the exhibita before the Commisaion were only achematic and q;,,.,,~< not a preCie? ;.Zignment for a road. ~, , , ~. Asaistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brow~ reviewed the reaeott for the initiation of Variance ~ No. 2027, i:~i:ing that the Commiaeion had recommended approval £or Rrl to the City Council, a and at thte time the City Council heard the reclaeaif3cation, tha Rrl was app.,oved - ;'^,.'',;;.~ however, they directed the etaff to ini~iat9 the waivers to perniit a variatian of lot ~,~ widthe and aizea to conform eomewhat r.-ith ths tract presented by the devel •~er, and tuat ~~ ; F the Planni.ng Commiaeion had continued the tract until thia meeting in order to have plans ' ~ Ynr accesa for the ~property north of Santa Ana, Cox~yon Road~ wes~t of Tmperi+~7. Hifgh~,Tay~ and , that ~the revieed tetttetive tract map wea ba.aically in cottformance with the area develop- , ~ ment plaa. r Cal Qiieyrsl, engineer of the p:•opoaed trac~, appea,red before the Commj,PSion and noted that subj9et tract had been.coneidered by the Commi.saion at the time they had recommended denial ~f R-2-5000 and approval o£ Rrl For the propert~, and the C3ty Council at their public herring had indicated they did not wieh to proceed with R-2-5000, but rrould grant conaideration of a sariance'instead; and'that thA me,p before the Commiseion wae in con- formance with the area development plan'which the Commiseion had recommended,sfiould be prepared in order ~~rnct adequa.te ciroulation could be provided. F1~rthermore, 3t wae'the fesling,oP the devel:oper and himeelf tfiat thevariance ehould be granted becQUae of the 3~ct that the propert,y was bounded on the north by the Rivereide Freeway right-of-way, a reaolution'of intent for commercial zoning of the property i~ed3atalp.~#o the saet and the`poseibTe potentl.al of denelopment of the property on the eouth eide d~ old Santa Ana Canyon Road for comnorcial purposea - th~ebp isolating the property ~~ing it un- deeirable Por more expenaive, eingle-fami~,f iomee of 7200 aquars fsat ae e~deted to the woet. 1~1r, ~ueyrel aleo noted i;iiat the lot aizeg prup~aed indicated maet of them were in eY;:esa oY 6000 aquar~ feet, attd all of the northerly lots were 5500 e.quare fest and aeversi were in exc9as o~ 10,000 aqus.re; therefore, the proof of hardehip re'.lative to granting tne varienco wae, in lzie eetimatiott, adequate~ and a flirth~r factor to take into cotte3deration wae the npen S.A.V.I. chaa:nel between aub~ect property and old Saz,ba Ana Canyon Road wUUld be completely enclosed and would coet in axceea of ~30~000s that improvement~s fox Santa Ana Canyon P.oad with curbs and guttera and a 6-foot maeonry wall, together ydth drainage coming £rom,the aorthweet, woi:ld edd to the coat of an indj.vi,du~.t l~t ar~3 makH deveSopment of the prope.rty for R-1 almoat prohibitive. Mr. Ted Gilbert, 5461 Garrick Drive, appeared before the Commieeion in opposition, noting hie property was immediately acl,jacent to eub~ect prcperi~; that he had appeared at both previous Commioeion and City Council meeting~ when th~ reclaseifica~iott wae conaidered on aub~ect property, with the Coarmisaion recammending denial for the Rr2-g000 and recommend- ing,R-1; that the City Couttcil at their pub'!ic hearing had inaieted that plane ehould be more epeciFic for thie property, with the minimum equare footage of homea~ tqpe of roof and pr~.ce range included in'the varianae petition; t5uthermore, if thie new road extending eoutherly from old Santa dna Canyon Road were not conebructed at the time the eubdivieion wae developed on sub~ect property, thia would add an additional minimum 52 oare to Maude Lane, cresting'a very hazardoua cottdition to the present 8Q case now goittg through thie area~ and then inqui,red if thia would be a cond.ition of approval~ Office Ettgineer Arthur Daw advised the oppoeition and the Commieeion that the.exteneion of the new atreet fbr Acceae Point No. 5 acutherly of old Santa A27a Car~,•on Road would not be a require~ent oP the tract, and there wae no plan for i~odiete uevelopment of the property aouth of o1d Santa ~ua Canyon Road. + ~u ~...... : :-~.-;:f: "".,,~" r~ `"} r~ >ti ~~~ ~~ ~. . _ .. . ~ !~ , ,. ..., _ , _ . ~ ,v ~ ~ , ~ _~ . MIl4UTFS, CITY PLANNING I;OMMISSION, November 4, 1963- l~190 AREA DEVELOPMENT - Mr. Gilbert then ttoted that every.one ofthe residents who reaided in PLAN',NO. 101 Fsahion Hi11s ad3acent to oub3ect property were deeply concerned as ' to.the'type.of homea planned for this=tract abutting their property VARIANCE N0. 2027 eince~-their`homee were valued at over:`~35,000 each. TENTATIVE MAP OF Chairman Allred adviaed Mr. Gilbert that the Commisaion could only - TRACT;;N0..6717, determine iahether.or not-thie was good:_land uae and could not regulate REVISION N0. 2 architecture of houaee going-into a tract. Flu~thermore, aince the Continued) requirement o£ more apeci£ic Flana wassmade by the -0ity Council,;these plans would have to be preaented to them for approval. Mr. Gilbert then noted that if the single-family 2iomeowne~s:to.the weat did not accept R-2-5000• and the Rrl with the variance, they had been informed that R-3 could be con- eidered; therefore, this was something like the old °ahell.=game°. Mr. Queyrel advised the Commisaion that the deaignefor the~homes had not been ~ompleted as of this date, and he wae not aure when they would be available. TFIE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commisaioner Rowland indicated he would like to give some assurance to the oppoaition that becauae of the development coeta on aubject property, which were extr~ely expenaive, it would be economically unreasonable to assume that aubatanda.rd homea would be developed because of the high lot coata, and he thought they would be comparable to thoae in the , area~ at leaet in the price range. Commisaioner Gauer offered Reaolution No. pC68-320 and movod for ite passage and adoption, seconded by Commi.saioner Mungall,{~ recommend to the City Council that Area Development Plan No, 101, Fxhibit "A;be approved as the moat appropriate meano~o£ providing vehicular circulation,for the propertiea betweett the Rineraide Freeway right-of-way to the north, Imperial Highyray to the eaet, and Santa Ana Canyon Road to the eouth. (See Resolution Book) ' n roll call the £or egoing reaolution s ~ wa psased by the £ollowing vote: , _ ~ ':> ~~, A~: COhIMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland. NOFS: C02~ISSIONERS: None. ` ~ ' r ABSENT:, COM'MISSIONERB: Cemp, Farano, Herbst. ? Cormmiseioner Mungall offered Reaolutiott No. PC68_321 attd moved £or it ~ a psseage and adop- tion, seconded by Commiaeioner Rowlend, to grant Petition for Variance No. 202~, aubject to conditiona, (See'Resolution Book) ~ „ :; On roll call the far~egoing reaolution was passed by the followittg vote: AYES: COi~AffSSIONF~RSs A11red, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland. NOFS: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CONIMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Herbat. Commisaioner Rowland of£ered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6717, Reviaion No. 2, aubject to the Followittg cottditiona: 1. That ahould thia eubdivieion be developed as more than one subdiviaion, eacfl subdiviaion thereof,ahsll be sul~mitted in tentatine form for approval. 2. That tHe approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6717, Revisiott No, 2, is g.ranted aub~ect to the approval of Variance No. 2027. . 3. That all lote within thia tract ehall be aerved by underground utilities. 4• That Street "A~~ ahall be recorded ae Edgemar Street; that Street "B~~ ahall be . recorded as Wade Circle; and that Street "C~~ ahall be recorded as Edgemar Circle. 5. That.the nor#h aide of the old Santa Ana Canyon Roed shall be improved with a 20-foot hali'-width street roadway within the 30-foot half atreet right-of-way, 6. That reasottable landecaping, including irrigation facilitiea, shall be 3natalled in the uncemented portiott of the parkwsy un the north aide of' old Santa Ana Canyon Road, ~lana for said landecaping to be aubmit`ed to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following inatallatiott and acceptance, the City of Anaheim ahall aesume the responsibility For main- tenance of said lattdacaping. 7. That drainage ahall be diacharged in a manner which ie eatisfaafiory to the City Engitteer. Commi~eaioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED, ~! t L ':~t ..~ ' ',~~ . .. ,. ~_.. ., ;?! . .: . .. .. ti: .'r~ L Yy. ~ F _.__ '_._ ._' ._._'__ __'""`"'_ .~• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . . . ~ . - ~ ' ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~~ MINIITFS, CITY PLANNING (~2~LCSST~N, November 4, 196$ l,.191 Commissioner Camp returned to the Council Chamber at 2:52 P,M, RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PITBLIC HEARIATTG. FRED BAY, HAROLD WILI,IAMS, AND MARTIN NO 68-69=26 ROBERTS, 220 Lagune, R4ad, Fyy7,lerton, California, Owners; HAROLD L. ' ~1B~, L+482 Beach Boulevard, Suite I, Weatmineter, Cali£ornia, Agent; TENTATIVE M9P OF requeating that property described .ns: Approx3mately 10.g acrea oi TRACT N0. 679 land having a frontage o~ approximately 533 feet on the north aide ~~f Orangethorpe Avenue and a maximum depth of approxLmately 785 feet, ~ha weaterly boundary of said parcel being approximately 906 feet eitat of the centerline of Iiighland Avenue, be reclaseifiad from the CUUNTY A1, AGRIC[TLTQRE DISTRICT to the R-2-g000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE. ~ TENTATIVE TRACT - REQIIEST: DEVELOPER: W.I.R. DETiEIApF~S, INC., 9942 Central Avenue, ~ Garden Grove, California. ENGINEER: RA.AB & BOYER ENGINEERING COMPANy, ].L,~g2 geach Boulevard, S~te I, Weatmineter, California. Sub~ect tract, located on the ttorth aide of Orangethorpe Avettue, east of the centerline of Aighland Avenue, ie proposed for sub- divisian into 97 proposed Ar-2-5000 zoned lots. i Said petition~ were continued £rom the meeting of :~eptember 23, 1968, to allow time for ~ ~ the petition~r to sub~3t revieed platts and from the ~eatittg of October 7, 1968, at the request of the petitioner. ~ Aseiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewec~.the locatiott of sub ect ro ! eei;ablished in close proximity, and the reaeon for continuance of subject p titionhandaes tract, noting that the petitioner had agsin notified the ataf£ that a further continuance was neceseary due to the oil well problema; however, a specific continuance wae not requested. Commisaioner Rowlsnd offered a motion to continue consideratiott of Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 68-69-26 and Tentative Map of R4~act No. 6733 to the meeting of Map 5, 1969, as requeated by the petitioner. Commi.saioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTIN[TED PUBLIC HEARII~G. PAIIL D. MAC MA'EiON, 1701 Galatea Terrace, ~ N0: 68-69-92 ' Corona de1 Mar, California, Owner; FRANK pREISSLER, 12681 Blackthorn Street, Garden Grove, Cal3fornia, Agent; property described as: An TENTATIVE MAP OF irregularly shaped parcel of approximately 15 acrea of land located TRACT'NO,. 4693, on ihe esat side of Orchard Drive and southweaterly of the Yorba Linda 3 REVISION NG'. 1 'Freeway, having a frontage of approxlmately 170 feet ott the east eide ; ~ of Orchard I?rive and a maximum depth of approximately 2,100 £eet, said parcel hanittg a ma~d.mum yd,dth from the Yorba Linda Free+,ray of approxi- mately Q50 £eet. Property preaetttIy claseiPied R-A, AGRICULTURAL,ZONE, ~RUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2-g000, ON~FAMIL-Y, ZONE, TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVEIApF.,R,; FRAN_2~AR DEqII,ppMENT COMPANy, 126g1 Blackthorn Street, Garden Grove, California. ENGINEER: SOUTH4dEST FNGINEERING COMPANY, 2923 Asbiuy Place, Anaheim, Californie; propoaing aubdiviaion of eub3ect property into 86 R-2-9000 zoned lots. Sub~ect petitiott and tetttative t:act were continued from the meeting of October 7, 1968, in order to allow the staff time to preaent a apecial atudy relative to the impact the increase in density to 5000-aquare foot lota wo-,il.d have on schools, pargs, etc. Asaistant'Zoning 9upervisor Pat Brown rsviawed the location o£ sub ect zoning and usea eatabliahed in close pro~d.mity, and the raqueet to pe mit atubdiviaion ~~n~' of aub3ect property into 86 R=2-5000 zoned lota. It wea also noted the Commieaion had continued sub~ect petition and tract in order that the staff could prepare a etu~ to reflect tBe 3mpact a.a incresae in denaity would have on achools, parka, and"public aervices 3.f approvis7. of sub~ect petition set a precedent for requeate £or R-2-5000 for the balan~oe of the vacant properties in this getteral area. Mr. Browa t~en no4,ed the atudy area encompasaed Richfield Road on the weat, Orchard Drive on tha north, Imperial Aighwa;; on the east, and Oranget~orpe Avenue on tae south; that the area conered approxima•:~ely 378 acrea of privately owned property, with 110 acrea developed for aingle-fam:i.?y, w3 acres £or R-2-5~OO,and 67 acrea for R-1, with 4 acres of commercial:,existing or l~ropoaed £or the area - which,le£t 261~ acrea atill available for reaidential development. Therefore, pro~ecting theae 264. acrea according tu the denaity for R'.l would mean 1,Og6 dwelling units; for Rr-2-g000, 1,505 dwolling uni,ts~ and for R-2, multiple-family reaidential, 3,432 dwelling uni.ts; that tha General Plan projection factora on'school age children to be serned would meatt: 1, ~' ~~y'r~"~'~ :~::: ,:~_ r i ~'~: v:=- ':{';;,; x C~ ~ ~~° '~~5~`~ry~-~ it's ~ I,,r` a~'r u~s '4kusr"r, y~ .;~ ~ '~ c .. ~; .s:M ~'3~~~ _ ~3 -____,~~_ _ _ _- -°-- - ..--- -•---- ~ ~.J MT~T~, ~TY PLANNIN~ ~:OI~II~IISSION, November 4, 1968 - 4192 RECI.ASSIF~CATION - K_6 Jr. Hiah Hieh School N0. 68-69-32 Rrl 782 336 R-z-5000 319 T~~I~ ~~F ~z multi le-fami 1~~5 4~ 455 TRACT N0. 4693, ' P ly /+14 177 169 BEVISION N0. 1 Also, the e~dating attd projected park fac3litiea, as well as other Contiuued City aervicee, would be ndequate regardlesa of the denaity of development. Mr• Brovn t~rther noted that the baeic coneideration befnre the Commisaion wsa the variatioa of achool age children ae it pertained to three diP£erent denaitiee, as ~;ell ae appropriateneea of land u[~e. It wcta also noted by Mr, Brown that the petitioner had autmitted a reviaed tract map ~ which propoaed the main atreet to be located on the souther ` I which would aerve aeveral ~Y periphery of the property ' terrain in t2~3,8 area, provide aneenvir~onmenteb f e betweengthe propoaed tractt dtthehe ~ -~ Eeperanza Fligh School aite to the eouth, ae we?.1 as allow for development of park and ~` recreational facilitiea on the achool eite. ~' Mr. Tom Conklin, represeating the devaloper, adviaed the Commisaiott he was avaa.lable to anewer queations aad that they concurred with the reca;nmendationa made in the keport to the C~~Baion. L ,: ~; ~'• RoY Knau.ft, 5682 Orchard Drive, appeared before tha Comm.iaeion in opposition and atated that he reaided immediately to the north, acroas Imperial Highway, £rom eubject ' property, and all properties in this general area to the north had County E4-15,000 zoning, W3,th very expeneive homea ranging in priae to $].00,000; therefore, ar~y tranait:on ~' from this aize lot to a hoavier denaity ahauld include 7200-aquare foot lota,Yjuat as tf~e i ?i tract to the aouth of the Eeperanza High School aite was developed; that the propoaed ~, j develop~ment would interject considerable ittcreeae in the number of vehicles per day yo ri Orcharcl I?Mve aloag which an elementary school was now located and a pro3ected high ~ f~ achool which ti,ould be completed in 1972 was proposed juat souther~y of aub3ect property, ~ ~ eaid achool having frontage on Orchard Driva; and that the increaee in tra£fic would be `3 hazardoue to the children going to attd from these achools. ~ 7 ~~ Mr• Kaauft further noted that as a member oF t'.3 board of directors u£ the Placentia ~ 3 Unified School Dietrict, he wiehed to adviae the Commiesion that the bond isaue had , , been defeate4 Yor any additiottal achools which would be tteeded if the denaity contiaued ' to increase ~•,~ vacant properties in this area, and that projections for future achools ' had been baaed on aubdiviaion witi~ 7200-equare foot lota or R-1 - this, then, could meaa w the e~dsting sc!aoola would be inadequate and half-day sesaiona might have to be initiat~d ~' if theae propertiea developed with H-2-5000. '.'4~' -6Y1 . ;, Mr. Wooda, the engineer for the propoeed tract, noted £or the Coaunission that the oppoai- tion had indicated he reaide@ acroee Imperial Highwayf however, there was approximately 37 acrea between aub~ect propt~rty and hia prnperty, and perhapa he was referring to the property where the golf course ad,joined aubject property, and he could not underatand how Y the propoaed zotting action would have any effect on Mr. Knauft's property. ~, Ih'• Clif£ord Riddlebarger, SLperintendent oi Schools, Placentia Unified Scbool Matrict, } appeared before the Commiaeion and noted there were aeveral basia conaiderations the Co~iaeioa crould have to give if sub~ect pe~~tion were coneidered favorab a ahanging the zoning from R..1 Lo.R~z_g000 would creata a problem £or the s hool district, f necesaitating the building of more echoola located closer toge4her; second~y, the school ~„ diatrict nad beett meeting with the Planning sta,ff and the Parks and Reereation Depart~ent to develap a program for the EspeTanza High School aite £or achool and recreation purposes z for tha.t area; that the close cooperation of theae two departmenta £or the betterment of < the community had beett quite rewarding - however, if the tract for R-2-50pp were approved, ~. ` the reviaion as preaented to the Commiaeion would provide a better accesa to both the ~ ; park and high achool aitea. ~rthermore, one problem he would like to bring to the Oo~isaion~s attention relativa to the map was that aPter meeting with the City regardirig ~ 3 development of the atreet, they had agreed to donelo ~ developer would develop the balance; however, ihe map indi,cata~ therachool would have~to develop more than 50~ of the etreet, and 3f the developer expects3 the Board of Education ~ to dedicate more than 50~ for atreet purpoaea, this would be almoat an imposaibility, and , any deliberations the Coartnisaion miglit make oa the propoaed request ahould taka the factora _ preaented into conaideration. ~ The engineer of the propoaed tract adviaed the Commisaiott that he had been under the •~ asa~ption that the stnff had an agreement with the achool regarding the atreet; however, a~c .` they xould be willi.ng to work out any problem with the echool regarding the proposed deveiopment. '§ ~ i ~ ~1'::~w~l fi Y ~ =~1~ 5 Y ~k~? ~ ~~~ ~. G f~~ ~..! .f . .~'k .~ U ~ , C~ ~~ 'I MINUTFS, CITY PLANDTING COI~IISSION, November 4, 1968 ' 4193 RECLASSIFICATION •- Mr, paul MacMahon, the petitioner, appeared befors the Commieaion NO• 6B-69-32 and no$ed tha.t the property was a long, narrow parcel and was not auitable Por develvpment for R-l; that aince he had owned thia TaTT:.TIVE MAP OF property, i.t had been cut off by the freeway along the north, the TRACT N0. 4693~ high achool to the aouth, and in hia eatimation, thie was a hard- REVISION NO,. 1 ahip ca.se to zoning in the area, while thoae properties weaterly of Continued Orchard Drive now being deneloped for Rr2-5000 had no aimilar hard_ ehip - therefore, he felt his requeat ahould be given Pavorable conaideration. ~ HEARING WAS CIASED. ~':'-'?~=~: The Commisaion noted that thoae propert'ea preaently being deneloped £or Rr2-g000 north ~~ of Orangethorpe Avenue,,with tre exceptioa of the Johneoa tract which had developed four f or five yeara ago, had multiple-family zoning while ati].]. under the juriediction of the ,~~- Couaty, and whea annexed into the City of Anaheim, the aimilar ~~ning was granted, and ' 'then inquired oP the Zoning Snpervieor how much of t8e property had been developed.~or 1;'. R.-1. Zoning Supervisor Ranald Thompeon noted that two R-1 tracte had been developed - one being loca.ted west of the new alignment of Orchard Drive, northerly o£ Orangethorpe AveiruE,- and the other eaeter],q oY Kellogg Street (old Orchard Drive north of Orangethorpe dvemie~; that the Butler-Harbour property had original~• been approved for Rr3 zoning, but later came in with a vaMaace and rrae now zoned for R-2-5000, and aince that time, the Budlong and Rinker properti~e i~ediatoly adjacent to the Butler-Harbour property also h.qd been zoned for 1~2-5000; however, the General Plan projected the balance of the propertiea in thie area for R-1. The Co~aisaion inquired whether or not the G9neral Plan reflected the 378 acres as was pro~ected in the etudy area: ' • Mr• Browa adviaed the Commisaion that the Hill anc; Ca~•on General Plan pro3ected the majority oP theee propertiea for low-deneity reeidential uae. Coz~iaeioner Gauer was:of the opinion that R-2_SOOO was not appropriate for the area under consideration aince thia zoning had beett ueed in areas where R-j had been conaidered; that the cloee pro~dmity o£ achools to aubject property and the R-1 tract aouther~y would make eubject property a very deairable neighboraood for low-deneity reaidaitial uaea; and that there were other place9 throughout the City where 5000-aquare foot ?.ats would be more appropriate. f' ~hairmen Allred noted that 5000-aquare £oot lots were e~d.ating to the weet of Orchard Drive, and only one subdivision with lote of 7200•aquare feet had been developed in that area. ?::~ . Oo~iaeioner Gauer noted that propertiea in cloee proximity to achoola Wou1d be very deairable Por lirl ueee; however, ia thie particular area, the number of children from '= thia development would not have any eigiiificant impact but rrould be eetting a precedent Yor develop~ent of all the vacant parcela norther],y of Orangethorpe Avenue betveen the ~ Imp~.riel Highway and ite interchange with Santa Ana Ca~.on Road, and if thia precedeat were aet, thia wou],d hane a aignificant impact on echool facilitiee. .~ Mr. Tho~mpaon noted that the pro~ectione oP the epecial atuc~q were made on the undeveloped acreage in th3s area and not oa the dsveloped properties. ~ The Cc~niaeion then inquired how mar~y grammar aehoole were meater planned by the Placeatia „_ IInified School Diatrict. Dr. Riddlebarger noted that cne elemeataxy achool e~dated in thie general area end one xas planaed to be located on the hill, together with a~unior high school and a aenior high achool - s11 msater p].anned; that the eatire maeter planning f.'or the echc;ol diatrict xas for 6$,000 etudente, but i£ thie entire area were pro~eeted .''ith hesvier deneity, at the preeent time he could not indicate a number they would hav~~ to accommodate. Dr. Riddlebarger flu~ther noted that the master plan pro~ected studenta bsaed on develop- ment oP the vacant parcele with 7200-equare Poot lota. Ooa~iaeioner Rowland noted that the prope:iy under coneideration for R-2-g000 wae on~y 1/25 of the etudy area ia atatiatice. which would mean that thie epecific aite would contribute 23 etudente through a11 ihe gradea over the number of etudente if developed £or I~l, aad thie wea not aigniYicant; however, it became coneiderably more eigni£iceat when it was pro~ected for the entire etuc~y area; that a coneiderable portion of the area ~ : .. . .. r ,~;~;4f,. ,._. ~ ._._ ..... .~ lr.~. . .. ~ .. .,. .. ... . .,.. g~'A~',~,.'~4`rT~'9.~.~"~b~^i ~'~`~"Y~~';t ~P" ~~r ~, w'~ ~' xg~~~rq x,a. t ,r ~S ~~~ ~~ ~{ .n ~,k . . ., :~ . . . . . . ,. ; . .. :~ ~. . . . . .- - _, \/ ~ ` \/ \.J MINUTFS, CITY PLaNNING CO1~Il~IISSION, November 4, 19(~g 4194 RECLASSIFICATION - weat oP Orc~ard Drive, northerly of Orengethorpe Avenue, had been N0. 68-69-92 coa~ttted by past Commisaion and Council a~tion to Rt2-900G` devel- opmeat, and to de~y the ac~jacent properties the right to develop TENTATI4E MAP OF with the same type of denaity would be dettying them a privilege TRAGT N0. 4b93, af£orded other properties. REVISION N0. 1 Coatinued) Conaiderable diacueai~~ a,~s then held by t~~e Commiasion se to whether or not an area of dema*~ation should be eatabliahed, limiting the R-2-5000 within that area; protection of the existing R-1 tract now ~''`~, aurrounded on two aidea with Rr2_g000; the n~ber of additional atudents that might be p'~y~acted.ss an increaee i£ thoae areas weat o£ Orchard I?rive were developed for Rr-2-9000; th+%Jt ma:.~ of the parcels not *~w developed were prime parcels for R-1 - therefore, they cc:uld not prove hardahip by requeating s more intenae use of the land; that propertiea in cloae proximity to achoola were considered highly deairable for residential purposea eince the children wculd not have to be driven to achool or busaed to school because they could walk to school; however, aubject property did hane aome of the amenitiea which the Co~is- aion normal.].y seeociated with more intenae zoning _ namely~ being adjacent to the Imperial Highway (Yorba Linda Freeway), but approroal of aubject petitioa ahould not aet a precedent + for the remaining undeveloped properties in thia area. ~ Oo~i.aeioner Gauer offered a motion to deny Petition for Reclasai£ication No. 68-69-32 '' for R-2-5000 aad to recommend to the City Council that Rrl, 7200-aquare ~oot lota be ~ considered. After further diecueaion by the Commisaion, the foregoing motion loat for ~ lack of a aecond. Commieaioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC6g_322 and moned £or ita pasat~ge and adop- tion, aeconded by Commieeioner Camp, to recommend io the City Council that Petition for Reclaseification No. 68-69-32 be approved, sub~ect to conditiona, with a finding that the Commissioa deema it deairable to eetabliah a new alignment of Orchard Drine ott ths weat, the nropoaed high echool aite on the north, and Orangethorpe Avenue on the aouth ae being the boundary where low-medium deneity, auch ae R-2-SOOG, could be developed, and that the balance aaeterly.and souther~}r of theae boundariea ahould remain for low- detteity reaideatial development as depicted on the General Plaa. (See Resolutiott Book) On r.oll call the foregoing reaolution wae paeaed by the following note: AYFS: CONII~IISSIONERS: Allred, CamP, MunBa7-1~ Rowland. NOFS: C02~IISSIONERS: Gauer. ABSENT: COMt~ffSSIONERS: Farano, Herbat. Commi.eaioner Rowland offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 4b93, Bevisioa No. l, subfect to the followittg conditiona, aeconded by Commissioner Camp and MOTION CARRIED _~iasioner Gauer voting "no" and Commisaionera Farano and $erbat being abaent: 1. That the approval of Tentati~ve Map of Tract No. 4b93, Reviaion No. l, ie granted aubfect to the approval of Reclaseification No. 68-69-32. ~ 2. { 3. ~ ~ 4• 5. 6• That all lote within thia tract ehall be aerved by underground utilitiea. 7• That Orchard Drive ahall be 45 £eet in width fr~ the center~ine of the atreet. 8. That adequate dedication will be provided at the eseter:~r end of ~~A~~ Avenue for a 64-foot wida atreet. That ehould thia aubdiviaion be developed ae more than one aubdivieion, each aubdiviaion thereof ahal], ~ satmmitted in tentative foxm for approval. That the vehicular acceep<.z~tghta, except at atreet and/or a11ey openinga, to Orchard Drive shall be dA~cated to the City of Anaheim. That Street "A~~ shall be recorded sa Fairway Dr3ne; Street "B~~ e~ ';,o Circle; Street "C~~ se Futter Circle; Street "D~~ ae Driver Circle; Street "E~~ sei Eag1e C3rcle; Street "F" ea par Circle; and Street "G~~ as Wedge Circle. That in accordance with City Council policy, s 6-foot meaonry wa,i;, ahall be conatructed on the weaterly property line aeparating Lot Nos. l, 2 and 3 and Orchard Drive, except that corner Lot No. 1 ehall be atepped down to a height oP thirty inches in the £ront yard aetback. Reaeonable landac~sping, including irMgation £acilitiea, ehall be inatalled in the uttcemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the t`u7.1 dietance o£ eaid wall, plans for esid land- ecaping to be sutmmitted to and subfect to the approval oP the Superintendent of Parkway Maintensace. Following inatallation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim eha11 aeaume the responaibility for maintenance of said land~caping, - ~.. ~ _. ~.-~ +,~ ;~ _ . `~.' .. ~ . , ~ ~ 'a. ~ m 4' + .~ xY ~. ~ ~ry ~ .. ~_ ,.m' rt s, ~i~ ..~ . .~ ,:T'a - ` rv~-nM 4y i . '~ ~\ V `~ . .`,I MIN[TTES, CITY PLAIQNING COI~lISSION, November 4, 1968 4195 RECLASSIFICATION - 9. That drainage shall be diacharged in a manner eatiePactorY to ~• ~'69- z the City Engineer. TENTATIVE MAP OF 10. That Street "A~~ aha].), be a 58-foot wide atreet, and dedication TRACT N0. 4b93, for said atreet aha.ll be mutually resolved between the devel- RSVISION N0. 1 oper and the Placentia School Diatrict. Coatinued) GIIJER~IL PLAN - CONTINIIED P[TALIC HEARING. IATITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING CONIl~SISSION, ,,.,',. ,~ • '~` AMENIIdENT N0. 111 204 E¢st Lincoln Avenue, Attaheim, Ca1{fornia; to conaider land uae ' :'~ ohange £rom caaumercial-recreation to commercial uaes for property --~'~ located on the aouthweat corner o£ Crnwther Avenue attd Kraemer , ~;~:° ~~ • Boulevard. ir ~ ~ RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED piTBLIC HEARING. NOR~EAST PLAZA, LTD., ],20 E1 Camino Drive, .~, ;~ N~. 68-69-38 Suite 216, Bever3y Hills, Ca13.£ornia; requasting that property dee- ` =t cribed as: ~ro parcels o£ land comprising a total of approximately 9.0 acrea located at the eouthweet corner oP Crowther Avenue and ~r 1; Kraemer Boulevard, having frontagea of approxi,mately 6!„~. £eet ott the aouth aide of , C.rowther Avenue and approximately 459 feet on the weat eide o£ %raemer Boulevard, the ;v southerly boundary of said land being approximately 4?5 feet north of the centerline of n ~rangethorpe Avenue, be reclasaified £rom the R-A~ AGRICITLTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, s,, ,_ GENERAL CONIMERCIAI., ZONE. Sub3ect General P3cn amendment and reclasaific~ition were continued fra~ the October 21, ?~68 Planning Commisaion meeting becauae .of a lack of a majority of the Commissiottera voting for eubject petition. Aeaiatant Zotting Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed tha reeaon for continuance of the General Plan amendment voting and the requeat for reclasaification of the 9-acre portion located at the aouthweat corner of Crowther Avenue and '.{raemer Boulevard to the C-1 Zone, noting that there preaently exiated C-1 and C-3 commercial land to the south and vacan't agri_ cultural land to the weat on which a reaolution of intent to M-l wae pending. M.,, Ed $ozlowslq*, representin,g the petitioner, appeared before the Commiasion, noting ti•st he ha,d concurred with the findinga o£ the Report to'the Co~isaion at the last public hesring, and then presented an aerial photograph of the erea under consideration to support the zoning actiott heing requeated; that the property to the aouth was also ownad by them, and it wae their desire to conatruct a aizable commercial ahoppi,ng center, and the zoning for aub3ect prope:rty wae a11 that was neceea~ry to complete the acreage tteceeeary; that the letter presented at the public hearing at the previoua meeting, from the Citv of Placentia, -opposing commercial uae of aub~ect property ahould ttot be con- sidered too serious~y aince they h~id also coasidered other ueea for pro:perties adjacettt to sub~ect property, auch as a tra'iler park, a hospital, etc. 1~Ir. Koz.J.owsky, in responae +.;, vo~iseion queationing, atated that the aa~or atore lessee proposi3d for thie Ahoppi.ug center had beett aelected and negotiations were in the proceee of aign,tng +..~.~, T$E HFARING tL;•~3 CIASED. Diacusaioa waE !aG~ld by the Commiasion relative to the General Plan amendmettt~ and the two exhibita were reviewed: Exhibit "A~~ being a regional ahopping center and F~hibit "B~' being a neighbrr.rhuod ahopping cettter. After diacusaion, the Co~iasion deemed Exhibit "A~~ for a regionsl.eihopping cettter eurrounded with multiple-family reaidential usea ae being appropriate ~£o~~ it~e property aorth of Orangethorpe Avenue, extending to Crowther, wea~erly o'F Kre.~er Bo•,.i].evard, Gommisaion~9r Rowland oiY~red Reaolution No. PC68_323 and moved for ita p~asage and adop- tion, aeconded by Commisaioner Munga].1, to recommend to the City Couz,cil that General P1aa Amendmeat N~. 171, F~chibit "A~~, be approaed aa be3ng the moat appropriate uae £or the property or~ the basis that a portion alreac~y wae zoned for commercial uaes, and the exicting comn:arciel-recreatioa deaignation was no longer applicable to the property. (See Resolution Book) V l.l ,x ,,- ~„«-.~ -- - --- --- ~ , l :}. V 4196 ~,:, MINUTES, CITY PLANDTING COI~AiISSI021, November 4, 1968 GIIJERAL PLAtT AMENIMENT N0._111 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 68-69-38 Conti.nued) - Commiaeioner Rowland offered Reaolution No. PC68-324 and moved for ita paesage and adoption, aeconded by Commiasioner Gauer, to ' recommend to the City Council that Petition for ReclassiPication '~ No. 68-69-3g be approved, sub~ect to conditiona, with a findi.ng that propertiea southerly of aubject property, also owned by the petitioner, were already zoned commercial, and Orangethorpe Avenue ~`ri could be the delineation mark for commercial and induatrial purpoeea ' in this area. (See Reaolution Book) ~i On roll call the £oregoing reaolution was assed ~ P by the following vote: AYES: COhIl~iISSiui:ERS: Allred, Camp, Geuer, Mungall, Rowland. % NOFS: COM1~ffSSIONE,qS: None. " ABSENT: COP'Il~IISSIC7~~RS: Faratto, Herb~t. ~ ~ VARIANCE N0. 202~1. - 2IIBLIC diEARING. RICHARI) A. AND DpRpTHy J. MINAR.SCH, 201 Leatrice I.ane, Anaheim, California, pymera; requeat3ng permisaion to WAIpE ' UFF-STREET PARKING REQIIIREMENT Tp pLLpFJ CONyERSION OF SIX DWELLING t ~ UNlTS TO SEVEN DWELI,ING IINITS WITFIIN AN E7CISTING BIIILDING on property described ae: ~' A rectangularly ehaped parcel of lattd having a Prontage of approximately 76 .feet on the north aide o£ Leatrice 7ane, hav.i*u~ a maximum depth of approximately 11.!} feet, and ' being approxi.mately 117 feet weet of the centerline of Mountain View Avenue, and flu~ther c deacribed as 201 Leatrice Lane. Property preaently claseified 1i~3, MULTIPLE-FANIILY ~-: ~ RFSIDENTIAL, ZONE. ~ E~ ~= Aseiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of aubject property, the ~ uaes eetabliahed in cloae ro7dIDi. ,~. p ty and reviewed the basis for the waiver requested, n ~~ noting it was becauee of the inabi3.i.ty to provide additional parking on the exiating ,. ~' lot while conroerting an exceptionally large apartment into two apartments within the k~ atructure. ~;__,,,.~#i k ~ The petitioner indicated hie preaence in the Council Chember to anawer queationa. ~ ~i~' '~ ,~{ Mre. Fern Cal7,, 104 East Leatrice I.ane, appeared before the Coffinisaion in oppositiott s,~~ and atated there was inadequate parkiag in the area at the preaent time; that on-atreet ~47~'"'~ P~'~nB was also completely £illed; that k previously residents in the area had been ~~ Parking in tfia vacant lots in this area, but theae were now being developed with apart- ~ menta; that most famillea had two vehiclee and were'provided covered parking for only ~~~ one per apartmeat - thia had created t~e deficiettcy of parking in apa~.}~ent developmeata; y that many of the reaidettta were parking in the alley; and that although ahe had eight i~ ~~ Baragea for aeven apartmenta, she could uae twelve garagea. E~irthermore, a11 of her ,,*' tettanta uaed their garages and had requeated more gerage apace. '~Ya, `M, 1''~'. Richard A, Minarach, the petitioner, appeared before the Commiesion and noted there ~. , would be no additional square footage added to the exiating atructure, and their only intettt was to reduce the aize of one large apo.rtment and convert it into two apartments~ ~ and that although moat of the apartment atructurea in the area had eight unita, their ~ ' development had on3,y aix, attd they were only increasing theirs to aeven uni,ta. ;~ The Commisaion noted that the large apartmettt could be rented to aeveral atudenta or .~ teachera, each hsving a vehicle - therefore, thie same aituation would exiat, namely, :.'tw;~.~ 1[illg. _~~ ahortage of par .~;~ `~ TAE HEARIHG WAS CLOSED. ; Commiesioner Mungall oPfered Resolution No. PC6B_325 and moved £or ita passage and adoption, aeconded by Commisaioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2021,., aub~ect to cottditiona. (See Reaolutiott Book) On roll call the foregoing reaolution was pasaed i~y the £ollowi.ng vote: AYES; CONIl~IISSIONERS: gllred, Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland. NOES: COMt~I2SSI0NERS: None. ABSENT: C~Q~IISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst. ,. ;~, ;. 1-c~•;:~~~-, ~:,: _ r.. ',~"' ~~ei ~~ ~` '. rx ~S„s,rir 4 1 x ~ ar ~~a.a ` a7 r~ t • r r~r~,`~ ,~1e ~ ^~^. 1; ¢ . __ ' ""'_'_'"v._ ______'___."_..__'_ 1_:~,4~{ ~ l I~~I V ` 1 ;:rr J 4197 MI~NT~S, ~'eITY PLANNING COI~SSION, November 4, 1968 CONDITIONAL USE - PIIBLIC HEAIiING. CLARENCE MC NFFS~ 1752 South Haster Street, P~T N0. 1~72 Anaheim, California, Owner; T. N. BRISTOW, 559 South Swidier Place, 'Orange, California~ Agent; requeating permieaioa to ESTABLISH A '?~_ PROJECTION OF A WAIS,BSIGN o~n property~deacribedIasINGAn i.i. egu],aqr yO~rhapea~p~arce~l of ~ ~ approxLmately 5,2 acrea of land, being bounded on the northeast by Mancheater Ave2rue, '~' on the weat by Haster Street~ a.nd on the aouth bp the Batella Avenue freewa~ overcroseing. Property presently clasaified RrA, AGRICULTQRAL, ZONE, ~ ` =`a; Comm3.saioner Farano entered the Council Chamber at 3:55 P.M. ~ Aasiatant Zoning Sitpsr~isor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subj.sct property, t3~e i previous zoning action on the property, and the propoeal to utilize an e~deting structure for a bua depot. , Mr. Browa f`urther noted that on October 7, 1968, the Commisaion had approv~ed utilization ' of an exiating,yacant bowling a7.].ey on sub~ect property for meetings, lecturea, etc., ~ at which time coneideration had been given to the requir~ent of dedication for atreet widening purpoaea of Haeter Street; however, the Commiaeion deamed that due to the fact ~ the uee was of a temporary nature and the S•tate Highway Department was conaidering an f extensive revamping program for thia area ia the future, dedication £or atreet widening purposee ahould be deferred utttil the temporary nature of the use o£ the property and i the State Divieion of Iitghway~s revampin~ program h8d baen formalized, at which time i the City could determine whether or not dedication £or widening of Haeter Street was neceseary. ? Mr. Brorrn also noted that under sub~ect petitiott, the propoaed Greyhound Bus Terminal was indicated by the petitioner ea being a permanent uae o£ the structure on the property involved; therefore~ the Gommi.seiott would have to determine whether thia new proposal conaisted of aufficient redevelopment or other dispoaitioa of the property to warrant requiring dedication of Asater Street ae speci£ied by the City k~gineer, whether the parking layout wae adequate for the total property, and whether other on-aite and off- aite improvements normally required by Code ahould be mat at thia time. Mr. Tom Brietow, the agent £or the petitioner, appeared before the Commi,ssion and noted that the City of Anaheim had been without a Greyhound Bus Terminal £or the paet aix monthe aad this had created a hardahip for the people of the City and viaitora to the City; that the propoaed location of the bua depot was conaidered ideal becauae it was close to the off-ramp and on-ramp of the freeway; that they preaently planned to have a echedule with aix buaea utilizittg the facility a day _ three to San Diego and three to I,oe Angelea, but thia might be picked up ia the fl~ture, and although considerable diacueaion had been held regarding a tranaportation center in the City of Anaheim, the propoeal wae a atep toward firming up this transportation center; and that as an example of the neceasity for a bus depot, there were 531 psaeengers delivered into thia area for the weekend. The Commieaion inquired as to the method o£ public transportatioa for bua paesengara; whereupon Mr. Briatow noted that both the Ysllow Cab and the Jitney Bus would be aervicing this bus depot. The Commiesion flarther inquired w8ether or not patrona of the bus facility drove their cara to the parking area and pat.ged for the day on the property; whereupan Mr, Briatow atated thie would not happen aince it did not oocur in the operation they had in Santa Ana. Mr. Clarence McNeea, the petitiotter, appeared beYore the Commisaion and reviewed the length of time he wae the owner of the property and the trarious methods he had uaed to develop the property for other uaes; that the previoua petition considered by the Commission in October propoaed an interim uae for another atructure, at which time the Commisaion had recommended dedication and atreet impronemente would not be neceasary due to the nature of the use propoaed, se well ae the pro~ected revamping of the Santa [~na F~.ee~y by the State Highway Department; and that although the bue depot might be conaidered a more permanent uae, the dedication and atreat improvement plana for Hsater Street would atill create a hardshi,p becauae of the fact that the FIighway Department had teatative plans for revampi.ng it, which might possibly take a ma~ority o~ his property~ thereby reducing hia net return if dedica- tion were given to the City, and he would not have this additional land to barter with the State. Oommisaioaer Rowland then ittquired whether the conditiona attached to Conditional IIae Permit No. 1063 would suit his purpoaee pertaining to sub~ect petition since no great concern could be evidenced relative to the drainage problem from aubject property; however, if future developmant of the property entailed a ma~or conversion, then dedication of .'~'~ >~; '. - _ ~. ' , r ~ ~ ~ '<~L"7 ~ .._...u,_ ...... ... . . .. , _ , ~~t~~., f'vr 'w~ ~ ,. Y^aFM ~S { ~ ~3`' 7^~' y.~tl ~~+ `' '~~' ~ ~ ` ~ j'' ~ x i ~ l ' ~, ~'!~' _.__ _ . _ . _ ... . ._ . . .- _--__. - - - - -'--- p - .. . . ~ . ~ . .. . . ~ ~ _ ... .. \/ . ~ \r ~ ., ` ':. 1 i ..J M~N~T~, ~ITl' PLANNIl4G CO1~ffSSION, November 4 19(~g ~ ~9g C~NDITIONAL IISE - Haster Street for street widening pnrpoaee and regular eite develop- ~ER~T NO ~1~ 2 • ment atandarda of the C-R Zone ahould be required, but the Commiasion Coatinued ~ wae not deairous of penalizing the petitioner in efforta to obtain ' ~ the beat poaeible return for the property in the event the Sta'te acquired a conaiderable portion of sub~ect property. ; ;' Co~ieaioa@r Iiowland further noted that eventually dedication would have to be r i f th d i. equ o rs e,petitioner aince this waa also a requirement of other ~ropert own i C n y era n the whe ity ;develop~ment of their property occurred other than what~ a i w e preeently exiating; therefore, appronal of aub~ect petition ahould be ott the beais of j' `~~ a year-to-ysar review in order that aa indefinite period of time £or uae of the property might n t b t ~ ;,, ~~ o e cona rued as preferentiel treatment oP the petitioner. ~ _'' .y Mr. MeNeea then stated tba.t he would be in agreemeat with the previoue conditiona relative to annual review howev h ; er, e was nat sure this would be accepted by the re reaent ti oP th Gr ~ .~ p a vea e eyhound Bus Compeny, Mr. E. C. Monroe, xepreaettting the Greyhound Bua Company, ativ3.aed the Commi,saion that they were agreeable to an annua,l review of tlie uae on aubject property as previouel,q approved for the bowling sl],ey, TEE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Caarmiaeiotter Camp ofPered Reaolution No. PC68-326 and moved for ita passage and adoption, aeconded by Commiaeioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Conditi.onal Uae Pe¢~mit No. 1072, with a£inding that the petition~ahould be granted for a period of one year, after which time the D~yw?flpment Servicee Department ahould review the uaea which were eatablished, the parking ae developed, and whether dedication £or Hsater Street was neceesaryr, and to determine xhether a new public hearing ahould be eet to be heard before the Planning Co~niaeion; that dedication and atreet improvement plana for Fiaster Street ahould be required, but uaiver of thia ahould be graated until auch time as redevelopment of, or other diapoaition was made of the property due to the nature of the proposed utilization of an exiating atructure and the ftiture revampiag progrem for the Santa Aaa Freeway and coaditiona, to provide trash storage aresa, fire ~pdranta,and air-conditi.oning faci~ities properlg ahielded Prom view,prior to final building attd zotting inapection; and that sub~ect petition ahall be granted for a period of one year and shall be reviewed by the Development Servicee Depax.{,ment etaff to determine what efFect the uaea of the property hade had on the area, whether parking had been adequate, and uhether dedication Por Faeter Street would be needed; and, further, whether a public hear~ng ahould be echeduled to determiae whether the uee ahould be continued - howeveF, if no public hear- ing xere neceaeary, the petitioner might requeat continued uae r,f the ~roperty Por an additional year. (See Resolution Book) On roll ca1], the £oregoittg resolution was paesed by the following vote: ~YES: (~t~R+IISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Row~and. N~FSs COAAffSSIONERS: None. AESFaiT: C01~4IISSIONERSo flerbst. REQ~ASSIFICATION - PIIBISC $EARING. ALBERT S. TOUSSAU, 6672 Richfield Road, Anaheim, N0. 6g-Gq-2q Californis, Owner; A. R. MC llANIEL, Anaheim, California A ent• ~ 500-C North Anaheim Boulevard, CONDITIONAL USE ahaped parcel o£ appro~.mate ro6 ~~ d~escribed as: An irregularly PEAMIT N0. 1069 oP a roximatel ~ 45 acres of land having a frontage FP y 5~5 feet on the east eide of Sunkiat Street and a • ma~mvm depth oP approximately 633 feet, the southerly boundary of said parcel being approximatel,q 205 feet north of tha centerline of Ball Road. Property preeently claseified COIINT3C A1,gGRICUL~~ DISTRICT, RDQIIESTED CLASSIFICATION: Rr3, MIILTIPLE-FAMILY RFSID~dTIAL, ZONE. REQtTESTID CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A 166-T.TNIT, MIILTIPI.~FAMILY PLANNF~D RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, WITfi WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, (2) MAXIMUM DISTANCE OF LIVING UNITS FROM A STANDARD STREET, ~3) MINIMfiM DISTANCE BE441EEN gUILDINGS, AND (4) LOCATION OF ACCESSOR~'BUILDINGS. Aeaistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown advised the Commi,aeion that the petitioner had eutmitted'a requeat for continuance of aubject petition ae recommended by the Inter- departmental Coffini.ttee £or Putlic Safety and General Welfare in order that the "not-a- part parcel could be included in the publlc hearing, r - _ , ~ - ' .~_. ~. _ . _ ' ~ ~.,., _,_ _ _ _ . .. ' . H~ ~ ~:I h 9~ Y t.~, . ~~+ , ~~r~ ~h s R!' f9,/`~9`. rl ~s ~~r~ ~r EI'.~' ~~~~ ~,~'~.-7;"K'~F,~C`~,t3 ~;~'~'K"4'~"~'~°~. :.:~'~` S ~ ~. i,.'~ ,~''~.'s~•:t r ` 7 ~ ` t k ~: i , , . ,x .'; , rr~ r i ` ~y._.=~~_ r ti . _; ~ .>>. --~- -- -'- -- - ....- --- - --_. _ _ __ _ --- _ ~ ~ . __..,,` ~~ES, cITY P~A~1NING C0I~IISSION, November 4 1968 ~ ' 4199 3~CLASSIE'tCAT301V - Verbal proteata were made Prom the audience regax~ding the propoeed ~• ~-~-29 continuance; whereupon Chairman 611red asked for a ahowing oP handa o£ those in oppoaition, and eighteen pereone indicated their O~Nd)ITIONAL IISE preeence in oppoaition. PEId~I3T' N0. 06 ~Continued Mr. Stuart Noble, 252b Whidby Lane, appeared before the Commisaion ia oppoeition, to epeak for those who had indicated their presence in oppoeition and indicated that the requeat for continuance wsa ~oat t.rnfair to the oppoaition who had taken time off f'rom work or had to hire eomeone 'to care Yor the children while they apper~red in oppoeitioa to aub,~ect petition; that the petitioner had weeks in which to prepare plana Pnr aubject property and legal aoticea would not have been aent'if a complete petition had been aubmitted; that he ~ did.not like to imply that the petitioner wae attempting delay tactica in order that the oppoaition would become tired of appearing at public hearinge; that he had had a zonittg request before the Commiseion and had never aeked for a continuance; and that he requeated, therefore, that the publia hearing be conaidered by the Planning Commiaeion at thia time. Zoning Supertrlsor Ronald Thompeon adviaed the Commiaeion that the petitioner had aub- mitted the letter requeating continuance on the recommendation of the ata£P at the time the Interdepartmetttal Committee had met, in order that the "not-a-part~~ parcel could be coasidered along with sub~ect property - thereby eliminating haying to advias ~ theae people to be preaent ~t ~ore than otte publ3c hearing, both before the Commiasien aiid the City Council. Coa~ieaioner Camp noted that he was in sym,pat~p with Mr, Noble's etatemettt; hawever, this aid occur every once in a whi],e, and ia thie particular instance, t'he rsqueet fAr continuance was on the part oP the City to include a11 the property for coneideration of rezoning rather then one pareel at a time aince the property was uttder one ownerahip. Chairman A1]sed noted that the Commiaeion had to conalder facta and data on petitiona eometimea four to five timea with the same evidence presettted; {~t aince the petitiotter hae autrmitted a requeat Yor continuance, and the ~ity felt this continuance wae valid, the Commisaion ahould consider t}dia as one zoning petitiott. Oommiasioner Gauer ttoted that,if ~he Commiaeion w~re aware a requeat was to be conaidered for continuance oP a petition prior to the meeting, the people in the audiettce ahould be advised of thia at the beginning of the hearing, rather than making them ait through two to thrae fi~oura of other public hearinga. Commiseioner Rowland noted that the Commisaion received their Comm3,aeion meeting packeta ott the Friday be£ore the public heaxing, while legal ttoticea hsd to 'oe publiahed eome t'fine grior to the public hearing. Zoning Supervieor Rattald Thompaon noted that at the Interdepartmental Committee for 1'ublic Safety and General Welfare which was held aevett days prior to the Planning Commiaeion meeting, the deciaion was made that all the property ahould be coneidered under one reclasaification; however, the legal noticea sent to the property owna~ra within 300 Peet of tue property, the neuspaper publication and the poetittg of t;he property were required by law to be completed tto leas than ten days prior to the public hearing - therefore, meny of the problema which are found at the Interdepaxtmental Committee meet- ~8 ~'e found after the property ownere have been notified, and this wae oae of the reaeona why continuancea are then recommettded attd asked for. Commisaioner Farano noted that although the Commission and ataf£ were aware the petition would be continued, there was no way of l~oW~g whether or not an,p oppoaition would be presented, and there was no one they lmew who the City could notify ae an official repreaentative that a petition wae to be continued. However, he did agree with the atatement made by Comm3,ssioner Gauer tfiat the people should not be required to ait for aeveral hours when a continuance requeat had been received and such continuancea were generally honored by the Commisaion ia the paet. F}u~thermore, the Commission and ataff ahould try to eatablish a procedure whereby the oppoaition could be notified in advance. Co~iaeioner Gauer then stated that 3t was his opin~oa that regardlesa oP a writtett request for continuance having been sutmitted by the petitioner, the owner or hia repre- sentative ahould be preaeat at the public hearing in order to answer any questions that mi.ght ariae. The Commission again noted that their body had always honored requesta Por continuancea, bsaing this on the fact that ihey assumed the requeeta were made in good faith; f`urther- more, each property owner ~d the right to requeat a change in zoning £or his property, and the Commieeion would have to evaluate each requeat to determine the proper land uae and whether or not it would be detrimental to the acl,joining properties. <:~r % 4 '.i _-. cy ...1^~'~!~h `j,~ 7`~~ ~xF}'~^e~' zw +c -~~ ~ r~~~ avrv4 ~~' r~v'-~w~s+v.~7s : .:~x Y";; n '"ri ,~'"' .:~' ~ f -• i ,r ^x r~ ~ t o- ~i _ ~ - + - s, r . t T ~- --. .._. _. .. ... O ~ ~J ~~ MINUTFS~ OITY PLANNtNG CON1~ffSSION, November 4, Z9(~g • /i.200 RECLASSIFICATION - Aaeiatant City Attorney John Dawaon noted that the Co~isaion could N0. 68-69-29 eatablish s policy.that all continuances would be honored; however, the petitioner or his repreaetttative should be preaent, aince if a ' CONDITIONiII~ USE requeat for continuance were denied, thia could eatablish a vexy PERMIT N0. 1069 haxm,ful, legal situation £or both the Co~i,saiott and the property ~Continued} owners. Mr. Noble again appeared before the Commieeion and ttoted that both he attd Mra. Roberts had been adviaed by attendanta at the Planning Dep~tment counter that subject petitions would be heard at thie hearing, and no mention was made that a continuance ~had been requeated. Mr. Tom MeCloud, 2547 Strong Place, appeared before the Commisaion attd requested considera- tion for an evening hearing on subject petition becauee there were more than 200 property owners vitally concerned with the proposed uae o£ sabject property, and conaideration of the additional property to the aouth of the propert;~ preaently advertised would have no ef£ect on the oppoaition to apartmenta propoaed adjacent to Rtl. Furthermore, he did queation the tactics o£ the staff in recommending that the petitioner not be prosent. Mr. Thompaon noted that the repreaentatinea of the petitiotter were preaettt at the Inter- departmental Committee meeting, at which time continuance was recommended, and the repreeentativeo agreed to said continuance; however, they were also informed to preaent a letter requeating the continuance. The Commission further noted t?;at the Commiasion rras required to cottaider tha property righ'ts of the acl,joining property as well as the petitiotter, and that the aituatiott that occurred was not the fault of the staff becauae the Commiasion had never had a policy in the paet in which continuancea had been honored; therefore, the Commiaeion ahould adopt a policy by which continuances could be adminietratively handled so that intereated peraons would be noti£ied in advattce, even on the firat item of the agenda in order that th•e intereated paraona would not be impoeed upon by having to take time off from work or hirittg baby aittera. Co~i.aeioner Farano offered a motiott to continue coneideration of Petitiona for Reclasai- fication No. 68-69-29 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1069 to the meeting of November 18, 1968, scheduling thie for an evening aeasion. Commiseioner Camp aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIID. COMMISSION POLICY •- Commisaioner Camp offered a motion to eatablish a Commiaeion policy that a~. requeats for continuancea of a petitiott ahall be made in Wedneaday preceding the PlanninggCommiasionemeetingt~and thatiany intereated peraona of advertised public hearinga could advise the Commisaion Secretary to notiPy them if a continu~nce were being requested after having receined their legal notice. Flirther- more, if the continuance vere being requeated, conaideration o£ the continued item ahould be first on the agenda. Commisaioner Rowland aeconded the motion., MOTION CARRIED, RECESS - Commisaioner Rowland offered a motion to recesa the meeting for ten minutea. Commisaioner Cemp aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recesaed at 4:10 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman A]lred reconvened the meetin at Commieaionera being present except Co~i.ssioner gerbstll RECLASSIFICATION - PIIBLIp HEAR~NG, pF~(~g,~ INCORPORATED, gl~,g_A West Central Park Avenue, 3 N0. bg_6q_3q Attahe3m, California, Owner; ppgER,T S. MC MICHAEL, 469-A Weat Valencia D~'ive, Fy~l].erton, Ca1~.fornia, Agent; requeating that property des- ;.~ TENTATNE MAP OF cribed as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of approximately 1.0 acrea ~ TRACT N0. 677• of land located at the westerly terminua of Lory Avenue and being :;~ bounded on the west by the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, the aoutherly boturiary of said parcel being approxtmately 1~060 ~ feet north of the centerline of ~Jrone Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICITLT[JRAL, ZONE to the Rr2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE. ' ~' TENTATIVE TRACT REQUFST: DEf~ELOPER: THE MC MICHAEI, COMpANy, INC., 469-A West Yalencia ~ Drive, Plzllerton, California. ENGTNEER: ANACAL ENGINEERING C~~', 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Sub3ect ~ tract, located approximately 1,060 feet north of the centerline ~ of Crone Avenue, westerly o£ the terminus o£ Lory Avenue and `~ containing approxtmately one acre, is propoeed for aubdiviaion ~~ into 6 R-2-5000 zoned lota•. ~-. . O-. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANIJING C02~ffSSION~ November 4, 1968 :? ~" r ^r ~;~ V ~'' 4201 RECLASSIFICATION - Aaeiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the locati~n or N0. 68-69-39 subfect property, the usea eatabliahed in cloee proximity, and the proposal to aubdivide this one-acre parcel into eix aingle- TENTATIVE MAp OF family lots, with lote.ranging in size from 5000 square £eet for TRACT N0. 67 one lot to approx3mately 7000 aquare feet, and that the ad3oining Continued lote iu the tract to the eaet, south and weat were aleo 6000 aquare faet - therefora the proposal would appear to be compa~ible or appropriate to the area. Mr. Cal Queyrel, engineer of the tract, appeared before tha Commieaion and noted that of the aix lote, fi~e wera over 6000 aquare feet; tha't they concurred with a71 reco~ended conditione for both the rsclaeaificatiott and tentative tract with the exception of requiring undergronnd util3,tiea - since there were already polea in the area, the re- quirement o£ undergrouad ut413tiea would not be desirable. Zoning Supervisor. Ronald Th,ompson advised the engineer that any request for waiver of thia requir~e,nt would havre to be made by le~ter to the Director of Public U~ilitiea. No one appeared in oppositioa to aub3ect petition. TF~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. Co~i.aeioner Camp offered Resoluticn No. P~C68-32'7 and moved for ita passage and adoptioxi, aeconded by Commiesioner Mungall~ to r,ec~mend ~o the Cit~ Council that Petition for Reclasaifica~3.ott No. 68~69-39 be approved, sub~ect to cond3tione. (See Reaolution Book) On roll ca7,], the foregoing resoZution was paesed by the following vote: 67CES: CO~IISSIONERS: A11red, Cs~p, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland. NOFS: COI~IISSI:NENS; None. ABSENT: CONIMISSIONF~t~S: Herbat. Commiasioner Gauer oP£ered a motion tn approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6774, subject to the following conditiona, aecoYlded by Cammiseioaer 3iowland and MOTION CAR1i,IED; L That ahould this aubdivision be developad sa more tliatt one subdiviaion, each aubdiviaion thereo£ ahall be aub~itted in tentative form for approval. 2. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6774 ie granted subject to the approval of Reclasaification No. 68-69-39. 3. That all lota within thia tract aha11 be aerved by underground utilities. 4. That a 6-~oot masonry wall ahali be conatructed along the north and weat property lines. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC I~A~~G, ~Dy g. ~D FT•T•p E. ~N~ g622 South Orange, Olive, N0. 68-69-40 California; IDG1IN W, qND CLApA M, gREIJE, z32 West Lincoln, Orange, California; AND CITY OF ANAHEIM~ 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, DARIANCE N0. 2026 Califor_n?e, Ownera; property described as: An irregularlq ahaped • parcel of land containing approxim8tely 29 acree at the aouthweet TENTATIVE MAP OF corner of Santa Ana Can,yon Road and Nohl Car~yon Road (k~alnut Canyon TRACT NOS. 6734, Road), having a ma~dmum depth of approximately 2,800 feet from 6771 AND 6772 Sants Ana panyon Road attd a maximum depth of appro~dmately 600 feet ZONE.~ohl Canyon Road. Property preaently claosified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, REQIIESTED CLdSSIFICATION: 1~1, ONE-FAMILY RFS7nENTIAL, ZONE. R~QUESTED ~IARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM IAT WIDTfi. TENTATIVE TRACT RF7QIIFST; DEf/ELppER; WESTERN LAND gAI,ES~ 230 Eset 17th Street, Costa Mesa, California. ENGIN~R: p00RHE2S-TRINDLE-NII,SON, INC., '3794 Beach Boulevard, Weatminater, California, Tentative Tract No. 6734 - 23 propoaed Rri zoned lots. Tentative Tract No. 6771 - 39 proposed R-1 zoned lots. Tenta'3ve Tract No. 6772 - QO propoaed R-1 zoned lota. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompaon advised the Commiseion that at the Interdepartmental Committee it was felt aub3ect petitions,and tracte ahould be continued in order to reaolve accesa for this property aince only one acceas point rrae provided ~o Walnut a,;:: ~~;<;' ~1~K't. • xr °~A, }ti ~ aF. ti K ~,+fµ~ .5 ~ r! rl ~ '' 'ie 2h. Yn't ~-x .e'~~FT` ~ jz~'r~ ~'yi ; rL~ 7 ~' } >C~T9~"'k'~tf ~ ~ ri+' ~- 'S 'S~a;~ r."? ~~ ' ~ ?f , - ~ ~ ~, F ~ ' --~ -. _ . ~ ~./ ~ ~; ~`~ h:.'. ~ ~ MIN[TTFS, CITY PLANNING COI~QSSION, N~vember 4, 1968 ~ ~ 4202 4 ~ RECLASSIFICATION - Cat~ycn RAa,d, and thia could poas a f5xture traffic circulation N0. 68-69-40 probl~ when the large eection f r , ,i =~ ~ ,, o ag icultural land to the weat wae developed for reaidential I ' ~? .~.A . • purpoaee. VARIdNCE N0. 2026 ,.- ~ i~ ~ No one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petitions. TENTATIVE MAP OF I ~ ' ;~ t THACT NOS. 6734, Co~3,aeioner Rowla~d of£ered a motion to cotttinue Petitione for 6 1 AND 6 2 Reclaeeifi ti ~ 'r ~ ca on No. 68-69-40 end Variance No. 2026, together Continued} with Tetttative Map o£ Tract Nos. 6734, 6771 attd 6772 to the m ti ~ F7 ~ ~, , + ee ng o£ Novembar.l8, 1966, in order that the etaff might be able t , I '~ " ~s o reeolve po~sible circulation probleme for thie property. Coarmieaioner ~amp aeconded the moti :40 ~ '~ ~,~' ,":, on. TION CARRIED, I i ~ a Sx ~ ~~M~T TO T~E - PUBLIC HEIIHING. IIJITIATED BY TI~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 20Q Eeat ANAI~IM MIINICIPAL ~OOln AvEnu !~ h i ~ `~ ' : e, na e m, California; propoain amendment to Chapter CODE 18.16, Agricu],turai zone; section 18.16.03o(4g to l imtt ~~th ~ ~ k 1 . , . e inaidental sale af agricultural produce grown on the premisea" ottly. , -.t Aeaietant Zoning Supervieor Pat Brown reviewer.l the exieting Code Sectioa 18.16.030(Q) which permita the incident l ~ a sale of agricultural produce not grown ott ~the premiaes as an accesaory uae where clearly incidental to a ri.ma ao i h ~ mmerc al agricultural produce markete or standa had been eat blished in the R-ArZone merchandising a wide ran f ~ ~ ,~, , ge o agricultural produce not grown on the premiaes attd'that outdoor atorage3s conducted in con~unetion with the aforem ti d . ;: en one bueineea; that Chapter 18.16 did not haqe aite development atandarde or required atreet or on-aite improvemettte which would provide for ad t ^ ' equa e nehicular traffic control, on-aite parking and screen- ing of outdoor atorage areae; that aimilar markets operatin i th C ~~ • ' % ~ k,; g n e ity of Anaheim~e commercial zonea were required to conduct all ectivitiea within a structure and were aubject to the site devel ~ t ;,~ opment atandards proyj,~ng for vehicular traffic control~ on- site parking, landecaping, attd all necessar on a d •i y n off-aite improvementa; and that theae coffinercial agricu],tural produce marketa or etanda ' ~ ~~ ,~T ~ " now permitted in the R-A Zone require the same buaineas license as a market operating in a commercial zotte. FSxrther- more, the Siga Ordinance, Section 18.62.045 relati t ~v ~~~;! ~li ~"~ ve o the R-A;Zone would not appear to be au£ficient for a commercial operation in that zone; therefore, the ataff concluded that the preaent agricu] tur l o t , ~ ~~ " . a pr duce marketa or atanda now permitted in the R-A Zotte were, for the moat part, of auch a nature as to be year-a d ~ ~~,~ `~xJ { r,j roun competing with re commercial bueineases gu7-ar marketa in co~ercial zonea, attd it appeared the original intettt oF permitting produce ata d ~ i ;~ n s on agricultural property ae an incidental acceeeory uae was to allow a farmer to retail the produce he grew on hi l y ~ s own and, and auch an intettt would be fulfilled if the produce atattds were limited to th r ., ~' e seasonal sale of produce grown on the premisea - therefore, the recommendation of the deletion of "the incidental sale of agricultural produce not k_ grown ott the premiaes" where the accesaory use wae "clearly incidental to a primeiy use", and this aection ahould b .;, e amended to peffiit incidea.tal eale of agricultural produce grown on the pr~i,se8 onl~,,. ; ;: Slidea were then preeented of the various aitea within the City where produce marketa wdre in ope~ation which i di ~ n cated the off-aite improvemente and aigne exiating on the propert~iea created hazardoua conditions and were detrim t l t a ` en a raffic. to the normal flow of „ : ; ~ ~ ~y ~ t~ ~ MI'• Herman Margulieux, operator of ths ~±roduca atand at 15z5 South Euclid Street, appeared before the Commieaion and noted moet oP i:he slidea preaented ,~ ~; ~ were o~~hta stand on property owned by Mrs. I, M. Rannow; tha't the taxea on the property were now almoat $9,000 a year and the ground could not ield ffi ra °~1 , y su cient cropa to pay for theae taxea - therefore, ~t wae neceseary to eell produce in large amounts which were not ~,, ,~ grown ott the premieee in order to pay £or theee taxea. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson inquired of Mr. Ma.rgclieux the number of signa he preaently had on the property so that thia could be made a matter of record. Mr• Marguliewc advised the Commiaeion that only four eigns were ou the property. Mr. Thompson then noted ~hat the ataff had taken Polaroid picturea of the property at 1525 South Ehclid Street at appr.oximately 2:30 P.M, on thi.a date, and theae~picturea indicat'ed approximately aeven aigna. Furthermore, the Police Department had requested that the Zoning Enforcement Officer :equire removal of aoma of theae aigna becauae their location was obatructing the view of motoriata, creating a very hazardoua traffic aituation. ; ~ - ~... .. - . J ~ ~_ `~ ~ MINUTES, CIT7C PLANNING C02+II~lISSION, November 4, 19(~g 42~3 ~MIN~NT TO T~ ,- The`Commisaion noted that at the public hearing regarding:signing - ANA~IM MIINICIPI-L" of the Rannow produce atands there was coneiderable discueeion:as ~~ to the number of'signa, 'and the Co~.i.esioa` aleo indicated t~ere (Oontinued) any aigns'approned could be located.' In reviewiag the picturea takea by the etaff, the`Commiseion further noted tbat'they could aee at le,qst aix signa. Mr. Thompaon noted for the Coa~ieaion that the City Council had approved Your eigna not to exceed 20 aquare feet, and that theee aigna ahould be placed so:as not to obstruct the view of the motoring public. Mr• Margu]-ietix iadicated it wae hia opinion the aigna on the property had bsen-approved by the City Council at their preaent location: Mr..George Osumi, 1582 Weat Broadway, appeared before the Co~aiaeion and noted they had Farmed the 25 acrea preaeatly located at Loara Street and Broadway for`the past ts,i' years and aold etrawberriea at the stand on the property where they had adequate ofF- atreet parking, anc~ the sale of the berriea occurred between March and the firet part oP June; therefore, he was deeirous of continuing thie operation eince they had a licenae t'x'a~m the City to do ao. Mr• Thompaoa inquired whether t~e atrawberriea were the only produce sold and whether theae were grown on the property. Mr• ~sumi noted that they aold only the berries and the were ~ y grown on th~ property. ;; Ni~'• Ear1 ~rrarray, operator of the produce atand at 1180 Weat Ba11 Road, appeared before, +~ the Co~nisaion and inquired ea to the epecific wording of the propoaed change; whereupon ?-i Comm9.seioner Farano noted that the propoaed change would permit the sale of produce grotm :~' on the property only. Mr• Curraway then noted that the erlsting Code had been wiaely writt,;.n and to cha.nge it: r would be changing,,the law of the land and would deprive'the farmer`owning txo piecea of ~ property, one a number of miles distant Prom the other, from aelling the produce'Pram ~j one of theae,parcels; that he had invested over ~].OO,C~O before he was'able to realize '~ ,`' ~Y monetaxy`return; that the L. A. Timea recently printed`an article about the plight ` of:the Parmer, eapecially in the strawberry busineas, where the grower made no money from the berriea except thoae which he sold at the atand located on the property; and ~;;~ that the growing o£ berriea wae s gamble, and they had planted 28 acrea of plants in . '''~' guguat and were now putting in the November plants from which they hoped to make a living ~"~= Fhrthermore, he was'aure very little research had been made by the City regarding the propoaed change in the Code and auggeated that the City Attorney inveatigate the righta oP a farmer and the lawa handed down throughout the coutttry which granted the farmer the veated right to aell what he grew, and that the farmer had to aupplement hia own produce in order to make a living; that their operatiott wsa one of the free ettterprise. operations eo dear],y cherished by the country remaining, that the farmere were in extat- ence long~before many induatries came to the Cit,y and aeked nery little in the way of services from the City while the City received consid~rably more in taxea and aervicea given. ~'. ~rraway ~rther noted that last Spring of the th,':rtq acree they had planted v3,th berries, a decision had been made to abandoa ten .of the acrea - however, he had adviaed the pereon who had made the decieion about abandonia8 t~e berry planta that he would hire school children to pick them, rather than.abandoa the berriea and that he would take them to varioua atenda to aell; that msny of the berry growers plowed under thair eropa' because of the price, even after having iavested $3,000 per acre, and they did not run to the City or the Federal Government for any asaiatance because of this losa, but were atill required to pay their taxea, and ell the £armer was deeirous of doing rras to be `'' left alone to make a 1iv3.ng as best he saw f~t on the property; that'the City o£,Anaheim could take pride in the fact that the berries grown in the City and Orange County went ~ I' throughout the country as well as throughout the world. Mr• Curraway, in referring to the fact that they had hired school chilclren to pick the berriee, noted they had hired 125 e~hool children - this not only hs~lpefl the'farmer, but aleo helped the children with expenaea for school. ~rthermore, he was of'the opinion that the City was under preeaure Prom the well-financed chain stores to cloae down the emall produce etanda, and the farmer could not afYord a spokesman to defend their righta; that he had been up aince 1:30 in the morning this date, attempting to pick up all the produce from the various areas, and he had approximately ~30,000 ittveated in produce which would be loat if the Code were amended; and that byr aupplementing the crope, the varioua produce atande were helping other farmera through reciprocal sales'by taking ~ <., . . __.- . . . . ~~_ l~v ~ ,~y ~.,A'P~~~{ 4U~~7,~3~j7~4~~j~'~9k~4"~t ~r .. ~~~.M ~ " ~~ ~'^_r'€.~ 4.°' .!K~~ 3 . 1 'r 7ta ^ Y` ~,~ ~ ~ _ `aT y t j ~ , ~ ~' ~i I`~~ ~ ~ ~._~.~~.._~.~_~ _. _' . "'_ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ v~ .. . . .. . . . ~ ~ . ~:~ V i M~7~, ~~~'~'~' r;:.4NNIlVG Cb;~ffSS~ON, Novamber 4, 1968 ,~p4 ~ -~ ~IM~T ~~ ANA~~I MIINIOIPAL - berrisa from Anaheim to other cities where farmera had produce at d an ~ '~ CODE an s d, in turn, aelling the produce grown on the other farm r ' o .;:.~ Continued) e s pr perty at their atanda. Also, aigna were needed ia ord t ~• er o aell this produce a3nce without signa, many people would ~ nob know the location in the general area, and he wae aure that ' that the rights of if the City Attorney would inveatigate, he would verify the fact the farmer had been eatabli h d t ~ ~ act according],5•, n a e hroughout the land, and would then Howaner, he was not deeirous of starting any legal proceedinga to ,<;j ~ guara tee theee inherent rights. :f The Commiaeion inquired of Mr, Curray~ay wha.t apecific recommendations he had regarding the propoaed amendment; whereupon Mr. G~u~raway stated he did not suggest any change - however, if some limitationa were made which were eomewhat more lettient than the propoeed amendment, perhaps they could live with it. ~thermore, he wae well aware of the preseure the City officlals were under and the traffic problema which had been inherent with produce standa. The Commieaion adviaed Mr. Currarray that no presaure had been brought on the Commieaion by outaide people, but becauee Anaheim wae a rapidly growing city, changea had to occur, and regarding the property rights of the farmer and other citizene of the City of Anaheim, as the City grew, it became imperative that the righta o£ all property owners would have to be protected, and one way thie could be accompliahed was by eatablishing site devel- opment etandarda where certain properties were used or deneloped for more intense uae than origiually zoned. Theae standards would have to be mat - auch as dedication, atreet improv~ent, curbs and guttera, aidewalks, attd street lights - itt order to retain the integrity and value of adjoining propertiea. The Commieeion again inquired as to what Mr. Curraway would auggeat could be done to protect the agricultural properties still being uaed for agricultural purposes and atill protect the acl,joining properties developed with more intenae uaes, aince they were re- quired to provide these site development standarda since the Commieaion was not deeirous of placing reatrictiotts on tha farmer that would harm 1~im~ and then cited one inetance where a produce atand had empty, rotting crates and rotting vegetablea which ware not only unaightly, but unhealthful and depreciated the value o£ the adjoining propertiea. 1~Ir. Curraway noted that he rented the property and problems regarding rotting vegetablee ehould be referred to the County Health I}apartmentsittce tkiey inapected his place continu- 'ally and he had received their approval; that he presently had private trash pick-up daily which he paid for so that the health hazard would be min3mized. F1~rthermore, he was desirous of having the produce etand he presently operated be acceptable and wanted the City of Anaheim to grow with proaper3ty and to ramain the No. 1 city of the riation. The Commiaeion then inquired whet~ar or not the produce atand operators would be willing to sit down with the Commieeion and ataff at a work sesaion to draft acceptable aite development atandards to improve the appearattce o£ these propertiea while still permitting the produce stands to operate with few handicaps. b1r. G~.trraway noted that farmers were unuaually busy, and his appearance before the L'ommie- aion waa coating him money. Co~iseioner Rowland noted that the problem of taxea was a problem experienced hy all farmera throughout the nation where taxea were more than the income from the property and then cited the inatance where the farm land he owned, valued at $600 per acre, had •returna that were ineufficient to meet the coats of operation as well as taxes. There- fore, the property quoted by otte of the produce atand operatora, indtcating that the property was valued at ~30,000 per acre would mean the taxes could never be met regardlesa of the amount of outside produce brought in, and the preaent use sa it pertained to the City of Anaheim was an interim uae of agricultural property. _ Commiaeioner Camp noted that the Curraway produce stand did not present the same problem £aced by the City where zotting laws had to be enPorced on other propertiee bsing uaed for commercia~ purposee; however, the Commisaion wae concerned with atands where all the produce sold was brought in since, in his eatimatiott, these were not farmera trying to sell the crops grown on the land, but regular commerc3al operatora enjoying a commercial venture without having to meet the ueuel City aite development atandarda which other commerc3al properties throughout the•City were required to do - one of those including off-atreet parking, Flxrthermore, the Commiaeion was not desirous of putting the legitimate farmera out of buainesa; that at least half of the Planning Commisaion had been reared on farms and understood their problema; and that the regulations were aimed at operatora of produce standa which were aupermarketa operating without neeting legal City requirements. Mr• Ourraway then indicated he wou].d be happy to meet with the Commiasion to conaider a solution to the problema preaented at the hearing; that he wae aure othera would also be willing to meet - however, adequate advance notice should be given ae to time and r, ' ~ , ,, ~ _ ;:: ,.. , . . a ...:.,~ -e ~.... -_~...:......i~Y , ~:, ~ . . .. ~. ~ ~,_~ M7'(i- "yf °~i ~ ~s .R a -~~~ . . _ ' , _. ' *~ ~ ~:,;~,~•: Y ~ ~ MINITTES, CITY PLANNING CONA4ISSION, November 4, 1968 AMENII~fEDiT TO T$E AryN~A~A~1EIM M[TNICIPAL WLL' " (Continued) - place so that conflicti.ng appointmente could be avoided. ~ y a Coa~iesiotter Gauer inquired oP Aaeietant City Attorney John D~waon ~'"; whether or not he could do some reaearch regarding the law of the ~,{, land and inherent righta o~ farmera ae noted by Mr. Curraway, ~: •-:~ ;"i' Mr. Dawaon advised the Commiasion that he lrnew of no lawa o:her than the basic principlea of zoning and land uae which had been basicallp upheld by the coux+ta in the psat, and then inquired of Mr. G}.irraway the name o£ hia attorney who would be familiar with the atatements made by him. ~~~ Mr. G~rraway replied that his ettorttey was Dennia Menke, whoae office was at 433 Weet ?~~~ . Eighth Street, Santa. Ana, ~ ' The Commiesion then directed the staf£ to reaearch and draw up applicable aite develop- ' ment standarda for the uaee of R.-A properties being operated ea produce atanda, both on ~ '~ a tamporaig and a permanent bsais, within the City, and that other communities should ~:; ::.,;~ be contacted to determine how they resolve their problama. ~ +:, ~, ,` 1~Ir. Thompaon than indicated to the Commisaion that if a light agenda occurred on the ~•.; :; December 2 meeting, perhapa th3a work aession could be acheduled under Reporte and ~ ~'; Recommendationa, and the produce stattd operators notified at ths ;me the agenda rras r ~ prepared as to the time and place of thia work aeasion. ~;;•; ,;: ;~. Coa~iaeioner Farano offered a motion to continue consideration of an amenc~ent to Title 18, Chapter 18.16, Sectiott 18.16.030~4) of the Anaheim Municipal Code to the meeting of December lb, 1968 in order that tlu~ther data regarding site development atandards, legality of the propoaed amenc~ent, and other information could be ca~piled by the ataff prior to the work seaeioa between the Commiaeion, the ataff, and the produce stand operators. Commisaioner Camp aeconded the motion. MOTION CARFiIED. 1~Ir. Thompaon, in responae to Commisaiott questioning relative to complaittta from the Police Department, had indicated the Police Department had made several complaints regarding the aigns of the propertq at F~clid and Cerritos; that ttumeroua field inspec- tiona had indicated the property wsa poated with more than the permitted four aigna, and it was the onlp produce atand in the City which rras permitted four aigns; that the Commiesion had denied the request, but the City Council had permitted the four aigns, and.aince the field inspectiona had been made, it was apparettt the operator had never complied with the requirementa of the resolution adopted by the City Couttcil. The Commiaeion noted that the Zoning Enforcement Afficer ahould enforce the reaolution pasaed by the City Council ae to number of aigna, and it should be mude per£ectly clear to the operator exactly what was granted to him under the variance by the City Council. Mr. Thompsott noted tba.t the Zoning Enforcement Officer would ad~iae the operator of the atand at Cerritoe attd Aiclid of the signa which were not permitted by the reaolution paeaed by the City Council and ittaiat that these be removed by 9:00 A.M., ~eaday, November 5, or the City Attorney would remove them. The Commiaeion then requeated that the City Attorney~s office review the numerous violationa of the variance granted Mr. Margulieux and Mrs„ pannow to determine whether theae violationa were e;ifPiciettt to request that the City Council conaider revoking the variance. FS~rthermore, Mr. Margulieux ahould be adviaed of the diacuasion held by the ataff and the Comm3,eaion relative to the violationa occurring. ~N~MINT TO T~ - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY Tf~ CITY PLANNING C02~AffSSION, 204 East ANAHEIM MUNI~IPAL Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californis; to coneider an addition to ~~ Ohapter 18.0/„ General Provieiona, Section 18.04•075, which would require cottetruction or development of single-fami~y residential etructurea ad~acent to arterial highways ahall be oriented ao ae to "rear-on" such highway. Aasiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed for the Commieaion the previoua report presezted to the Commiaeion relative to the propoaed amendment, noting that thia was as a reeult oP the Front-On Study made by •the ataff and the Commiasion and adopted by the City Council wherein the undeairability of having homea fronting attd siding on arterials created the aituation whe=e reaidenta of theee homea were requeating commercial zoning for the property, and by requiring that where a property was acl,jacent to arterials which were propoaed for development of eingle-family homea, such as R-1, R-2-9000, R-H and R-E, rear-on to thesa highways, co~ercisl converaion could be discouraged or eliminated, and that ut the October 21, 1968 meeting, the Commiasion had recosmended that the City Council adopt an interim policy requ.'.ring aingle-family homee to resr-on ~; - -- ^r:,_ r:~ _ .. . . ~ . < . . . .....,.. . . ' . . . . ~ , . '. r ~n ~^t+~.1 eF l~II'r~$RIL•'ttt,'sFO~'cl~l{. ~ ~~'C'._'~~A~i'~ n4Y#xre. ~~i ~ j \,... i ~ .: ~. 4 ~~ . .. ~ ~~ ~ e~ ... ~4~. ..:~~~. ~ . .'~ . ~ f ~ 1 ~ . ; rM ~`: .. . . , . rl. 1~IINfJTES, CIT3C PLANNING COMMISSION, Nov~ber 4, 1968'; . . 4206 ~ }b ~ . :' ; , AMEBTIMENT TO TBE ', arterials. which :were being. considered'Por• tlie future , {~ ~" . ; . , . :ANA,HEIM MQNICIPAI,:: e`. • •' , :: ,~ ~ ~~~' •~~ No one appeared in oppoaition to sub~ect:amendment. ; ` Coatinued) i ` - : ' ,. . ~; , ,r :: THE rHEARIPTTG WAS .GLOSED ' , r~; . Co~i.saioner Camp.offered}Reaolstion No PC68=328 and moved for ita paesage and adoption " ~ , aec onded by-;Commieeioner,>;Mungal7,~ ,to ~;recommend ~to the City:;Council that'Title-18 0£ the' Aii,aheim Municipal; Code be am nded b th it ' ' w.:~ , . e y e add ion.o£ Section~18.04.075 ,;to read ae followa:: "Conatruction or;development of.:single=family.reaidential:structurea ac~ jacent to arterial '~,~,'. ' , hightaays, as deaignatep on.the Circulation.Element-of the;Analieim`Ga'neral P1an -.Arterisl Streets and`Highways ~shall qui '= kiat: n ' r~~~ ,; re re t reeide tial atructures be oriented.ao as to' _ "rear oa" "such hi"ghways°: (See"~Resolution Book) ~ , On.roll=call the;£oregoing reeolution was paeeed by the £ollowing vote: ;s?'• AYESe CONA~IISSIONERS. Allred, CamP, Farano, Gauer, Muttgall, Rowland. ` NOESi CONINIISSIONERS: Noae ' f, . ABSENT: ' COHII~IISSIONERS: ' Herbat. ,~ ~ ~~,~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ` AWOIIRNMENT ~ - There being no flu~ther buaineae to diacuae~ Commisaioner Camp. pa offered a motion to ad~ourn the meeting. Commiasioner Mungall ;'~ aeconded the motiott. MOTION CARRIED, '" ~ ~ a ~ , The meeting adjourned at 5c30 P.M, . .. . ~ x: i. r.q^ , ~~ . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . ' . R88p6Ct~11].1~ Bll~~tt8d~ . ~:..;a ~;~. . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~~~~ /~1 ~ ' ~ 4~ ~a ~ ~/ ~ ~ . . . . . ANN KREBS,,Secretary ~ . ~''t Anaheim Ci1•y Planning Co~isaion :~~~ ` . ~~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~'~,, M 3~ ~ . . ... ~~ . . , ~ . . . . . . . . . ~ .'.•..;'A . ' ... . ~ ~ . . . . . ~ ~ . . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ";y , ;; ' ~ ~ ~ . . . ' ~ . ~ ~ . . L ~fQ . . . . ' . . . . . ~ . . . , . ~ ' . .. . .. , . . ~ . . . . ' ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~H .,~~~ . .. ~ .. . . . .. . . . ~ . . . . . . . .. ~. ~ . . .. . ~ ~ ~ I ./l' ~ ~."I . . . . . ~ . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . ' ' . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ :.' ~ ~•i 1' .~ S ~ . . . . .. . ~ . . . ~ . . . ' . . ~ ~ . . . .. ' ~ ) .'# ! ~ ,~ .. . . ~ . . . . . . ~ ~ . ~ . . . ~ ~ . .. . ~ ~. . ~ . . . . . ; . ~ ~~4 .'y! . . . . . , . ~ . ~ . .. . ~~ . . . . . . .. . . . . . . , .. . . . . ~ _ . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . ~ . .~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :'~ ~~j .. ' . ~ . ~ .. . . . ' . . ~ ' ~ . . ., . . ' . ~ ~ ~ {~. . . . .. .. ~ . ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ' . . . . ~ . . . .. ' . . . ' . . . ; . .. . . ~ ~ ~ - ~ . . .. ~ ~ . ~ .. . ' . . . . ~`~ ~ ; •: . .. . ~ .. ~ . . . j .~ ~ .. . . . . . . ~ ~ , ~ ~ . . . . . . . . ~ ~ r^ ~':' 1 :y ~S~11!'~