The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1971/06/28t _' : _ _ j ~i ~ ~ I . ~ ~ ~ . .~ ~' ~~ 4 ~ ~ ~ • ', ~ • n ~ _.. - . .J~ .Y ~Y City Hall Anaheim, California June 28, 1971 . A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION . ' REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission MEETING " was called to order by Chairman Herbst at 2:00 P,M., a - quorum being present. _, ,r-.~~.: - J* PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Herbst. `a. - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. ;:%. r~ '~ ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Farano. _- ', , _i PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry Office Engineer: Jay Titus ti 2oning Supervisor: Charles Roberts '~ ; Associate Flanner: Don McDaniel ' • ` Assi~tant Zoning Supervisor: Malcolm Slaughter :. s ' Commis~ion Secretary: Ann Krebs Z. ~~; ,~, PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Gauer led in the Pledge of Allegiance to ~, ALLEGIANCE the Flag. , ; : =~ `, s~ APPROVAL OF - Minutes of the meeting of June 2, 1971, were approved with THE MINUTES , ;;, :y the following correctionst Page 71-318, paragraph 5, line 14, should read: "wall of w x the same natural...." • .p •,.~ Page 71-322, paragraphs 2, 3, 5 and 6, lines 1 should be: :~ , "Hendrik Van Ysseldyk (first name ,;~ ~ and spelling). ; ~ ~ Page 71-337, paragraph 3, line 4, should be: ' ' glass ca es" g ,.., ~f`' J'~, (not cases) . .~ ,f line 15 should be: "pentobarbital" ~ , ~ (not pentathol). " a;p ~ :?j line 19 should read: "air would be ~ ~' evacuated to simulate an altitude ,r'Ej of 60,000....." (delete "simulated i to reaching"). Fage 71~352, paragraph 14, l~.ne l, should be: Mr. Sherman ` Ninburg (delete "JOe"). ~ `; Page 71-3Ei6, paraaraph 3, ad.d: "Commissioner Kaywood returned , ~ to the Council Chamber at 10:22 P.M," j ~ 5' ~ CONDITTONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. GRACE E. DICKERSON, 252 South 9ERMIT NO 1239 : i~ : - ar ~ , Elder Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; ROBERT SINGER, 2692 M i W ~ ' ~ a n ay Drive, Los Alamitos,, California, Agent; ; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A MOTEL AND A RESTAU- RANT WTTH ON-SALE LIQUOR on ro t ~ f " p per y described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land havin a fronta e of a g 4 i i : pprox mately 371 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of.=approximatel 254 f ~ ~` ' ,.;,~; y eet, and being located approximately ?f.0 feet west of the centerline of Cliffrose S ~ ~ treet, Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ' ; Sub'ect ~ petition was cantinued from the meeting of June 2, 1971, to allow the petitioner ti t ~ ~ F,~,. me o submit revised plans. , "- ~ , ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter advised the Planning Commission that a l Et ~_~ >, e er had been submitted by the agent for the petitioner requesting an additional two weeks' ti t ~ me o submit revised plans. ~ Commissioner Rowland ofEered a motion to c~ntinue consideration of Conditionai Use Permit No 1239 t ~ i . o the meeting of ,7uly 12, 1971, to allow the petitioner time to submit revised plans. Commissio K ~ ner aywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. i ~ 3 71-401 ~ ' •~ ~ , . 3 } ~ ~ ~.~ ' r,- J ~:~.';:ti . _ .'~ ~ ". . . . ~ . . .. . . . . _ . , . ... ~ ~ - ~7 - ., '~ y,riJ i'.. _. t~. . - ~ - - . . ... ~ . . ~ ~ . , . ~ . . . . . . - - ' _ ~- - - -• ~l ~ --. _y ~. . . • ^ 1 -.~ _ .. ~ r `-~ , ~ - - _ ~_. ..._ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ 3une 28, 1971 71-402 CONDITTONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. DONAyAN E. RODMAN, 3238 West PERMIT NO. 1240 Orange Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; CHARLES E. --r-•. ' ETCHLER, 6888 Leilani Lane, Cypress, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A NURSERY SCHOOL IN I AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE on property described as: A rectangularly- . ~ shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 110 feet on the south '~ side of Orange Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 250 feet and being located approximately 428 feet west of the centerline of Western Avenue and further described as 3238 West Orange Avenue. Property presently classi- _ fied R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. , .!~ - Subject petition was continued from the meeting of June 2, 1971, to allow ~~'' ~' ~.~;' ~ time for the petitioner to submit development plans . ~~`. `;i Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject •s property, uses established in close ~ pror.imity, and the proposal to establish a nursery school in an existing single-family residence, noting that the peti- tioner was proposing to add approximately 1500 square feet of floor area to the existing 850-square foot structure; that all of the praposed building ~. additions and the majority of the existing structure would be used for playroom facilities; that parking wass available for 8 vehicles in the front yard area, ` 4 of which would be within the ultimate right-of-way of Orange Avenue - there- fore, 4 spaces would have to be provided elsewhere on the property at such time as Orange Avenue was widened and improve3; that a new 6-foot masonry = wall was proposed along the east property line, with a chainlink fence along the sauth and west property lines; and that the existing structure would be located only 2 feet, 3 inches behind the ultimate location of the sidewalk i at such time as Orange Avenue was widened, therefore, the Commission would + wish to determine whether the existing structure should be removed entirely : or re-located so as to provide adequate front setbacks from the future right- fj of-way line of Orange Avenue, because the R-A Z-;ne required a 25-foot front ~ setback -this would not only provide for setbacks but for a swing drive to , faciliLate vehicular movement into and out of the property. '"1 ,t~ Mr. Charles Eichler, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and indicated his presence to answer questions. _~ Considerable discussion was held by the Commission and staff regarding the ,,:{ requirement for dedication of considerably more than half of the street width i;>`. for street widening; whether or not a reciprocal agreement or reimbursement _.,~;.~~ should be given the petitioner; whether or not a street widening program was :-;; in effect for 'she street, and if an agreement had been reached between the ; petitioner and the City whereby the City, after examination of each ind±vidual `~ case by the Director of Public Works, would install the street improvements, ~ curbs and gutters in exchange for dedication, staff noting the reason for requiring more dedication from the properties on the south side of Orange Avenue was based on the fact that the north side was already developed witki a high school. Commiss.ioner Allred inquired of the petitioner whether or not the portion of the structure which would be within 2 feet of the right-of-way was proposed ' to be used for any school purposes. Mr. Eichler replied tnat at some time in.the future this would have to bE moved since this would not be an add-on portion, and then noted that other ~~ properties to the east and west, which would be as close or closer to the '~ ~~ right-of-way when the street was widened, were not being requested to re- '~" locate; however, it was their intent to remove this structure within six to a. twelve months, since this was an interim u~e, so that they could expand the s facilities in a different manner, and then in response to further Commission questioning, stated that there would be 40 to 50 students; that the addition i„ for the front could be relocated to the rear; and that they did not necessarily need a swing drive since there would be sufficient driveway area to preclude the need to back into oncoming traffic on Orange Avenue, because they did not wish to hinder said traffic. ~,~ Chairman Herbst was of the opinion that a swing drive would be more ideal for deli.very and pick-up of the children than a regulation drive since, in the future, this street would be heavily traveled; whereupon Mr. Eichler stated *.`, he would like to place a sign suggesting a right-turn only for safety purposes. ;' ~t :: ';~ i. ' ~ ~,.,... _.,....,, ~ i` - . _ rf, _ - .t:. ~~_ '....r.~....1: _ _ _ , ~ \ . ''' f +- -..: ~ f ~. - ~;. _:.-:;r,.w;i~''~ . ~ I .~ :: ..; ::s~~.;.._. S :'. , •,~, ,;. •, y ~' :.~'•, ~~~ :F i11~ t;; ~ir. ~~•~.~*.! . ~1 ~, ~ 7: • ~ _i ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIpA, June 28, 1571 CONDTTIONAL USE - Chairman Herbst then inquired as to the PERMIT NO. 1240 ing for widening of Orange Aveaue. PrOPOSed schedul- (Continued) Office Engineer Jay titus noted that there was no Inter- departmental Committee condition regarding the right-of- way dedication or street improvement since the City had reached an agreement with the owaer in which the City wouid install the improvements in exchange for the right-o€-way, and this would be installed in the next fiscal year. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the underlying zoning would require a 25-foot building setback. Commissioner Allred waS of the opinion that at the tim< the street was widened, the property owner should relocate tiie structure to conform with Code setback requirements. Mr. Slaughter advised the Co,mmission that the City did not require removal or relocation of the structure if the street were widened, unless the structure was within the ultimate right-of-way, Commissioner Seymour then stated that at such time as the street was widened, the structure should be relocated; however, he would suggest that the new add3tion not be placed on the front portion at this time. ~ Mr. Slaughter ,advised the Commission that requiring relocation of the structure would have to be a condition of approval of subject petition. Mr. Roberts inquired of the petitioner whether or i:o;: the petitioner intended to have the same number of students, even after the facilities were of a permanent nature, and would he envision a need to increase the enrollment. Mr. Eichler replied that they had no intention of having more than 60 students. Mr. Roberts then noted that if any substantial changes were considered above and beyond what the Commission mighi approve, this would require a new public hearing, either of the original petition or a new petition filed. rto one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer noted that in view of the fact that the petitioner stipulated to relocating the addition proposed for the front portion, and the petitioners were receiving a form of remuneration for the additional right-of-way being requested, he would withdraw any oppositian to subject petition. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-121 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1240, subject to relocation of the proposed addition proposed to protrude into the ultimate right-of-way and removal or relocation of the existing structure at such time as the future widening of Orange Avenue took place so that said structure would conform with Code-required front setback, as stipulated to by the petitioner, and limiting the number of children in the nursery to 60, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call th2 f:;regoing resolution was passed by the followinq vote: AYES: COMMISSZONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst Ka wood NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ' y . Rowland, Seymour. None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. _.•x.,, .~~ - - .x :., _ it , '• . t. ` _ - ~.~ ~s. , - ._:,,,~, . 'i - ~i l~ ~':. ., : ~'': ~ _ - f _ ~ _ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSSON, ~une 28, 1971 71-404 RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. A. D. AND M. A. STRAND, N0. 70-71-48 840 Weet Grove Avenue, Orange, California, Owners; DONALD F. BUHLER AND M. L. BOWER, 4001 Birch Street, Ilewport Beach, California, Agents; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2 acres, having a frontaqe of approximately 132 feet on Y.he north side of Cerritos P.~enue, having a maximum depth of approximately 630 feet and being located approximately 462 feet west of the centerline of Knott Street, and further described as 3531-37 West Cerritos Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. Subject petition w3s continued from the meetings of May 3 and June 2, 1971, in orfier to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter advised the Plannittg Commission that the petitioner had submitted a letter requesting permi~sion to withdraw and terminate all proceedings on subject petition. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to terminate all proceedings on Petition for Reclassification No. 70-71-48, as requested by the petitioner. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. R~CLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. R. SPEHAR, J. LIBERIO, AND NO. 70-71-53 H. BUDLONG, 1681 West Broadway, Suite 1, Anaheim, California, OWners; ANACAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, 222 TENTATIVE MAP OF East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; request- TRACT NO. 7419, ing that property described as: An irregularly-shaped REVISION N0. 1 parcel of land consisting of approximately 45 acres, having a frontage of approximately 1,540 feet on the TENTATIVE MAP OF north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, having a maximum TRACT NO. 7470 depth of approximately 1,340 feet, and being located approximately 2,000 feet east of the centerline of Imperial Highway, be reclassi£ied from the COIINTY Al, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL~ DISTRICT AND CITY OF ANAHEIM R-~A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE to the R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE. TENTATIVE TRACT RE QUEST: DEVELOPER: RAYMOND SPEHAR AND J. LIBERIO, 1681 West Broadway, Suite 1, Anaheim, California. ENGINEER: ANACAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject property is proposed for subdivision into 143 (Tract No. 7419) and 96 (Tract No. 7470) R-2-5000 zoned lots. Subject petition and tracts were continued from the May 3 and 17 and June 2 and 14, 1971, meetings at the request of the petitioner. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, noting that the petition and tract were continued from several previous public hearings to allow the petitioners time to submit a revised tentative tract map together with a new tract; that the area encompassing subject property was designated for low-density residential use on the Anaheim General Plan when General Plan Amendment No. 122 was considered by both the Planning Commission and City Council; that the intent of the It-2-5000 Zone was to encourage development of single-family homes on 5000-square foot lots in areas deemed appropriate for low-medium and medium density development on the General Plan -therefore, in vi.ew of this statement and the fact that the Planning Commission and City Council had deemed low density residential use as being appropriate for subject property, the Commission would have to determine whether the proposed R-2-5000 zoning would provide the type of development envisioned for this area. Tf it were determined that this would be the appropriate density, then the Commission would have to consider the proposed street design and of particular concern was the street located nearest the Riverside Freeway, which would be apZ~roximately 120 feet southerly of the freeway riqht-of-way line wherein a tier of lots was proposed between the freeway and the street, since under the (SC) Zone a 6-foot high berm would be required between the ireeway right-of-way and these lots, and while the berm would undoubtedly enhance the living environment of the single-family ,•~~ ~ ~ ~~:~' ~'~ ~ " _ . _' ~'~~. - ' _ _ .' . .. . ' _ _ -_3~ . _ .. . _ _ ' . -~u~-~ : _ . ~, Q.l~ i'.~r,:"...~~''n°'- '~w.~ _ . . 1 ~ '~ _. _ _ _ . .. ~ ~-' ~ _ ___-- .~J_-. ~ ~ '\ ., : ~ ,1 ~: :~k! 'r , ~ { ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 28, 1971 ~ 71-405 RECLASSIFICATION - lots, it might be more desirable to locate the proposed NO. 70-71-53 local street adjacent to the freeway right-of-way line, TENTATIVE MAP OF thereby providing additional separation between the TRACT NP. 7419, proposed homes and the freeway itself; that the petitioner's REVISIO;t N0. 1 original proposal placed the street adjacent to the TENTATIVE MAP OF freeway right-of-way line, and the location of the street TRACT NO. 7470 had been discussed extensively with the developer, (Continued) however, the petitioner evidently felt that lots should be located between the street and the freeway - therefore, the Commission would have to determine whether this was appropriate. Mr. Slaughter also noted that an additional problem had arisen with Tract rro. 7419 since staff had received copies of a proposed tract to the east of Tract No. 7419, and a comparison indicated the location of the proposed drainage control channel did not coincide; therefore, it would appear any con- sideration of Tract No. 7419 be continued until such time as the property owners could resolve their differences as to location of this drainage facility. In addition, the tract east of subject property further provided additional circulation with an east-west street, which also was not reflected in Tract No. 7419; and that since no setback line had been indicated on the plan to reflect the minimum 50-foot building setback from Santa Ana Canyon Road and the Riverside Freeway as would be required by the recently-adopted (SC) 2one, if the petitioner were unable to provide the required 50-foot setbacks from these arterial streets, it would be necessary for lot depths adjacent thereto to be increased to 150 feet. Mr. Cal Queyrel, engineer representing the petitioner, appeared before the Comaiission and noted that the reason why R-2-5000 zoning was appropriate for subject property was because the property was in close pzoximity to both Imperial Highway and Walnut Canyon Road, and since commercial and R-3 zoning were deemed appropriate adjacent to arterials, this zoning would be a step down, but there was a question as to how far east R-2-5000 zoning should be considered; that the property had similar problems to that north of the river in that the properties north of the river had an arterial and a railroad track, while subject progerty or property south of the river had the Riverside Freeway and Santa Ana Canyon Road - designated as an expressway - and in some respects, the property north of the river was more desirable because the trains went only appzoximately thirty times a day, while traffic on the freeway was constant; that the property on the north side of the river was on the upgrade side, while that on the south was on the downqrade side; that land- scaping adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road, if planted densely enough, would obscure the view of the tops of the homes from above; that the City now had architectural control rights on all plans in the canyon which would require the nost desirable developments; that if the homes still could be viewed from above, the City could require specific roof requirements that would present a more desirab].e appearance to these homes; that since there appeared to be a moratorium on the development of R-2-5000 homes on the north side of the Santa Ana River, this reduced the supply of said lots by several thousand, even though there was a great need for this size lot in Anaheim; and that the area was appropriate for R-2-5000 zoning. The Commission inquired what the height of the property was nearest the river- bed; whereupon Mr. Queyrel stated that pr3or to the information released by the U. S. Corps of Engineers, the lowest portion of the property would have to be filled 2 to 3 feet in order to drain into the river; however, with the new criteria for draining water to the river, it might be better to pump this tract instead. The Commission inquired whether or not Mr. Queyrel had read the letter from the Orange County Flood Control District, and upon receiving a negative reply, Commissioner Gauer read excerpts from said letter. Chairman Herbst noted he had seen this area flooded many times, and that the OCFCD had advised them that the freeway would also be flooded. Mr. Queyrel noted there was a.04$ grade in this area, and this would bring the height up considerably over the 2000-foot span between ImperiaS Highway and subject property, but if Chairman Herbst was referring to a 100-year flood, the water would come to the top of the levee; however, no provision was made for a project flood since this would flood everything. ~ ^~ ~ ~ _,..'~~ . --f ` ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 23, 1971 71-406 RECLASSIFZCATION - Chairman Herbst inquire~ ~;• ~o whether or not the level N0. 70-71-53 TENT of the property was h~as,rcr •-:~ top of the levee; whereupon ATIVE MAP OF Mr. Queyrcl stated t;.•a i:>:;,G ~::z> about 5 feet below the TRACT N0. 74I9, REVISION NO 1 levee - however, it ;~~ts r.~~~.k~x ~: ~ent to fill this to make it . TENTATIVE MAP OF one basic level, :~r .3;•::::,~ • Xnve1 of the freeway. 4 TRACT NO. 7470 Office Engineer Jdy `Y;i•~• :. !.'"~rb•3~r3 the Commission that ' (Continued) for information purpa~:.~ ~.;• ;~,~;~ seviewed the State's freeway plans, and the elevation at the westerly end of subject property would appear to be 1 foot lower than the levee. Mr. Queyrel noted that they would have to give some thought to splash-over the freeway; however, it was his opinion that any breakthrough of the levee with heavy rains and a flood would occur far up the can•-on. Mr. Larry Matzick, representing Ponderosa Homes, developer of the tract immediately adjacent to subject property, stated this tract would be considered at the next Commission meeting, and stated that he would likn to ask what kind of an agreement could be reached for the drainage channel directly east. Mr. Queyrel stated he would suggest that the City Engineer establish the precise alignment of this, although he had no opposition to meeting with the developer if his developer authorized him to do so. Mr. Titus advised the Commission that it would not be the : t~cern of the City to establish a precise alignment of this channel since thiu should be an agreement between the two developers, and the condition recommended in the approval of Tract No. 7419 would govern this. Commissioner Seymour inquired as to the exact property covered in the letter from the OCFCD; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that this applied to the property immediately to the north of the Santa Ana River channel - however~ based on the concern expressed in the letter, properties adjacent to this channel would be flooded since the elevation of the freeway was 1 foot lower than the levee of the river, and subject property was lower than the freeway, therefore, he would assume the same concern would apply to subject propcarty that applied to the property on the north side of the river. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission as to whether or not subject petitions should be continued for the developers of subject and adjacent properties to ~ resolve their drainage problems and whether or not the Commission should take some action rather than misleading the developer since the Commfssion was of the opinion this area should be developed Eor low density residential use, and the proposal was for low-medium density. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that if the Commission took action on the reclassification at this hearing, they must also take ~ action on the tracts. I Commissioner Seymour then stated he was not willing to continue these items, but he could not recall that the commissiun had considered R-2-5000 zoning favorably in this area, even though the City Council may have indicated that, the General Plan amendment did not r.eflect this when the City Council approved the exhibit; therefore, if it was t:he Commission's position to maintain low der.sity, and since the Commission was also reluctant to take action until the flood control problem was resolved, he would suggest that the Commission take action on the tracts based on what the OCFCD letter stated, and continuance of the reclassification and tracts would not gain anything. Chairman Herbst then stated that in line with this same thought, the City Council did state everything south of the river was low density, and thc- Commission recommended low density for both the north and south of the river, although the City Council determined R-2-5000 zoning north of the river was appropriate - if the applicant redesigned the channel to coincide with plans for the adjacent tract and a favorahle flood hazard letter should be required to be r~btained from the OCFCD, a continuance would be needed. ~ ' r~ - e,_ , .;. .. . . i . ~ • ~. .. . ~ .. . . . .-. . , . . . ... . . . . . . _ .. . . . . . . . .. ~.. . , . ~..._ . .. . . . . .-. . . . .. .. ~.. . . .... . .. . .. . ~ . . . ~ . '~ ~_ ~ . i . , _,_. , _.._ ' , _. . ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 28, 1971 71-407 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Seymour was of the opinion that this favor- NO. 70-71-53 able flood hazard letter could not be obtained until TENTATIVE MAP OF after October 1, 1971, since it appeared from the letter TRACT NO. 7419, that the OCFCD was unwilling to take a position until th REVISION No. 1 TENTATIVE M e U. S. Corps of Enqineers completed their report; there- AP OF TRACT NO 7470 fore, he would be willing to consider a continuance until . (Continued) the Corps o£ Engineers presented their recommendations. sideration of Petit Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue con- i of Tract Nos. 7419 on for Reclassi£ication No. 70-71-53 and Tentative Map Revision No 1 d 7 , for the developers . , an 470 for eight weeks to allow time to meet and resolve their draina e ch l g anne problems. Mr. Matzick advised tw the Commission that he could meet with Mr. Queyrel within o weeks to resolv be adequate. e this drainage problem, and a four-week continuance would Commissioner Kaywood then amended her motion to continue subject petitions to the meeting of July 26, 1971, to allow the developers tim=~ to resolve the drainage problem; however, to also advise the petitioner that the Commission would consider subdivision of the propNr~ty for low density only; and that a favorable flood hazard letter would have to be submitted before the Commission would take further action. Chairman Herbst advised the engineer, in response to a request for denial, that he would not consider any action by the Planning Commission on the property just because the petitioner did not agree with the action taken by the Commission. Commissioner Allred seconded Commissioner Kaywood's mution. MOTiON CARRiED. °~,:~:.;r;~ TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: PONDEROSA HOMES, 4570 Campus Drive, Newport ' ` ;I ''T TRACT NO. 7471 Beach, Cali£ornia. ENGINEER: Toups Engineering, 17291 - r'L-'~;_:,,;~, Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, California. Subject tract, =~' x~ comprising approximately 38 acres located on the north ``•-;`J side of the future extension of La Palma Avenue south of !i:t yf ~s~~ Esperanza Road and easterly of Imperial Highway, is ~z ';;~ proposed for subdivi.sion into 206 R-2-5000 zoned lots. '•~.., ,,.y, , t~' `7 ~-ssistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject ;;~, ~ pzop~ertp, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the "~ property, and the proposal to establish a subdivision containing 206 R-2-5000 ~t:'r zon~d lots; that the proposed street system was designed to connect with ;' stre~ts proposed in subdivisions which had been approved on adjoi~ing parcels ~ to the east and west; that lots alcng La Palma Avenue and the AT&SF Railroad S 3 right-of-way were not of sufficient depth to comply with the new subdivision ° regulations unless a specific setback alignment was established in conformance ~. with City Council Policy No. 538; that on June 14, 1971, the Planning Commission 3 by a vote of 4 to 3 denied three tentative tract maps on property several 5 hundred feet east of this property on the basis of the potential flood hazard ;;:~ to the area and the recent action by the Board of Supervisors concerninq Yorba :~ Regional Park; and that on June 22, 1971, the City Council denied a tentative < tract map on the property immediately to the east and a re-subdivision of a tentative map previously approved on the parcel to the west - the primary : reason for this denial appeared to be based upon the unwillingness of the 3 affected property owners and developers to consen~t to a 60-day continuance 5', - in order to allow time for completion of a report by the U. S. Army Corps of =; Engineers regarding this flood hazard, and the pending action by the Board of ~,;,, . Supervisors on the Yorba Park. £ c Mr. Larry Matzick, representing the developer, 4570 Campus Drive, Newport ~` ~ Beach California, a !; - ~ ppeared before the Commission and noted that in review of ",''`'' the requirement of a letter from the Orange County Flood Control District and the problem regarding the possiblity of a portion of this property being :` ~ utilized for the Yorba Regional Park, until these matters had been resolved, ~Z~.:;.~ rather than having any more riders tied to the map, he would request a continuance until there was sufficient clarification on the Board of Super- visors' action and whether or not a favorable flood hazard letter could be obtained. ' 1~`'1 ~ ,~c ; ; -~ i ~.: ` ... y . .. _ ~ . . . . ' " . f 1 . - ' _ .." :..... ~.JS, as. : . - .~ ~ . : ; . . . , ., . . ~ ~ . ~ . ' ~ YL ' ' . i .._~. . ..... .. . ._..~.,~~ ....:.~ ... ..... _~ ~ ~.~ .. .. .~~ .. , .-....1._ . "€s_-. . ~-~ ~~.~ ~..~ ~i ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 8une 28 1971 , 71-408 TENTATIVE MAP OF - Assistant Development Services Directo TRACT r Ronald Thompson NO. 7471 noted that the letter which the Commission had befo (Continued) N ~ re them from Geor3e Osborn of the Orange County Flood ~ Control District regarding a 100-year flood - thi ; ' s could prove to be a problem, and since no one knew how much of a problem could be created, the Commissio ~ n could continue subject tract for two to four weeks to determine how much of sub'ect b y the Yorba Regional Park and for staff to determi fpcted ~h t u ne ow much of these properties would be affected by a 100-year flood. >'.;~ ;,~ Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue consideration Map of T f ~'~ " ~; ~ o Tentative ract No. 7471 to the meeting of July 26, 1971, as re developer uest d f ~ `' q o e by the the property, to allow time for a determination of th of the Yo b ` ~ r e boundaries a Regional Park by the Board of Supervisor ~~ , ;'` ~ s and for clarification of the OCFCD letter regarding the 100-year flood problem K i.-' : ~ s. Commissioner aywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. . TENTj~T~,W~ ~p~p pF ,- DEVELOP£R: C, MICHAEL, INC. , 8501 Bolsa Avenue, Midway 1 TRACT N0. 6824 - ~ City, California. ENGINEER: Raab & Boyer Engineering REVISION NO. 4 Co., 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite I, Westminster, California. Subject tract, located on the east side of ~ ' East Street, approximately 200 feet north of Ball Road, ~a consisting of approximately 12 acres, is proposed for ,:::°.s: subdivision into one R-3 lot. "~S ~: Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter presented Tentative Map of ~~ Tract No. 6824, Revision No. 4, noting the location of the property, surround- ing land uses, and the proposal to have one R-3 lot subdivision on the property; ~£ ::1 that the applicant was proposing approximately 132 statutory condominium units; T ~ that the developer presented plans although these were not under consideration ~ as the project would conform to the R-3 Zone; and that the matter of trash ° y~ pickup provisions being written into the CC&Rs had been discussed with the -`~'~`~r;'~ Sanitation Division, who stated they were satisfied with this arrangement ~ f ~?'K "`' '~~~, which would eliminate the need for the City or its private contractors to enter private property, This arrangement is necessary because on-site circu- ~, ~'",~ lation is not proposed. a,- i.- -~ Mr. Slaughter, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the last y;~* condominium approved was at Rio Vista and Frontera Streets, wherein the CC&Rs -:~ had been submitted and approved by the City Attorney in the manner proposed here. ^, Commissioner Gauer expressed concern that this would be a continuing request, a,; and the trash problem would be magnified, since there was nothing worse than ~ empty cans sitting on the curb, if no one picked them up. a h Commissioner Rowland noted-that the only alternative would be the "heinous" '~ alley circulation pattern. ;;;,~- . , = Commissioner Allred was of the opinion that alley pickup would be worse, _~ since he had viewed a number of alleys which were far from desirable because ~ of the manner in which people disposed of their trash, and that residents = would be more concerned about th~ appearance of the containers if they were r: u located in front of the buildings. Commissioner Rowland inquired what the permitted length of a cul-de-sac was and what made this property uniquely more valuable to permit this length of a cul-de-sac, since he felt this cul-de-sac exceeded City standards. Office Engineer Jay Titus stated there was nothing different about this ^ property that warrented any change in consideration of a cul-de-sac of this length. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that a previous revision of the tract = had a 800-foot cul-de-sac with many more units than presently proposed. ,. '; Commissioner Gauer inquired as to the amount of money that was required to be ~' impounded for maintenance and control purposes. ~:~ ~ake ! I I ;; ~ ~ _, u~ ~ 4~1. . . L w., ,~~ ~ . . . . . - _ .... .._ _ ' ~ - -• ... " ' _ _ . ' • ~ _ _' ' ~ ~ '" _ ___ i ~, ~~~~ ~w,:S!_ ~~~- ,J ~~. ' i . Q _- ' '_ -' ' _ __~-'__ _- - . ~ ~ ~ ,i .'. , I ~ . I ~li....~~- _ _ ~ . . ___ +O _ ~ ~ ~ y MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~une 28, 1971 71-409 TENTATIVE MAP OF - Mr. Roberts stated he did not know, but if Commissioner TRACT N0. 6824, Gauer was thinking about Gramercy Park, that was an RIIVISION NO. 4 entirely different situation. (Continued) Mr. Hal Boyes, representing the petitioner, advised the but could not be established~untiltithhadlbeenndeterminedewhatlcosts would• be as they pextained to maintenance of landscaping, general upkeep, water lines, etc., and hat the money is put into trust, and the community associa- tion would be responsible for both the money and maintenance costs. Further- more, the builder would have to pay for that portion of the lots which had not been sold. Therefore, tnere was n~ danger that the money would disappear since it was held in trust, and that the builder was reluctant to enter into the management aspect af the association because of the many underlying dangers involved, Commissioner Gauer noted that some builders did participate in this manage- ment phase; whereupon Mr. Boyer stated that this could be so where the builder had contract sales, however, the builder he represented had been in this business for fifteen years and never had a problem, since FHA required this as part of the CC&Rs. Commissioner Seymour noted that the CC&Rs would be approved by FHA even if only one unit of a condominium complex was financed by FHA. Mr. Roberts noted the c~~ncern expressed by the various school boards regard- ing develo~ment of single-family tracts and apartments and suggested that the Commission consider requiring that the developer contact local school ' districts to advise the district of the approximate date the developer would 1 commence development. Whereupon the Commission determined this should be a ' condition of approval of all tracts. ? ~ Commissioner Allred ofPered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6824, Revision No. 4, seconded by Commission~r Seymour, and MOTION CARRIED, subject to the following conditions: (1) That approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6824, Revision No. 4, ! is granted subject to completion of Reclassification No. 68-69-49. i (2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdiv- 1 ision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for aprroval. j (3) That all units within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. (4) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. (5) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. (6) That the owner(s? of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as deter- mined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. (7) That drainage oi subject tract shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. (8) That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings, to East Street shall be dedicat~d to the City of Anaheim. i (9) That Bell Avenue west of Cliffpark Circle shall be developed with a 7-foot wide planter divider, 26-foot travel ways on each side of the planter, a 5-foot parkway on the north side of the street and an 11-foot parkway on the south side. East of the planter divider area, Bell Avenue shall transition into a 40-foot roadway with a 5-foot parkway on the north side and a standard 12-foot parkway on the south side. The 5-foot parkways shall be full concrete with treewells and irrigation facilities as required by the Superintend- ent of Parkway Maintenance. The roadway transition shali be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. ' ~ I ~;1,=~ * .._ ,.._. :~ . _ _ , .~ .,, .•. , .. . . ~e: ;. ,.. - r~. _,.- ..4:. ~t . , , ~ - .w. ~~ . .. _. - } ' ~ ~ , ._ . . . _ , . . ~ : ,. ,: ~ t , ;' j : .~.,<..., { .. . ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 28, 1971 71-410 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 6824, g~VISTON N0. 4(Continued) (10) That a parkway maintenance assessment district for the perpetual maintenance of the proposed planter divider shall be established in accordance with City Council Policy No. 532, (11) That the covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be submitted to ar,d approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. The CC&Rs shall place upon the association the responsibility for placing trash disposal containers at curb side for trash pickup and for removal from the public street following pickup. {' (12) Prior to filing the final tract map(s), the applicant shall submit ` to the City Attorney, for approval or denial, a complete syriopsis ~' of the p g pro osed functionin of the operating corporation including, but not limited to, the articles of incorporation, by-laws, pro- posed rules and regulations, methods of operation, funding, assess- ~%; ment, methods of management, bonding to secure maintenance of ;~; common property and buildings and such other information as the City _. : Attorney may desire to protect the City, its citizens, and the pur- '~ chasers of the project. d r (13) That the developers are urge3 to contact local school districts to r~ ~ advise them of the approximate date the developer will commence :``~` development of the tract. . ~.:~: I ; ; '~ i ~ ': ` ~; ti`; :.~! , ~ 3`_s. AREA DEVELOPI~lENT - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING PLAN NO. 45 COMMISSTON, 204 East Lincoln Avenue; to consider extend- ing Hilda Street from its present terminus to connect with Sunkist Street. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, previous Planning Commission and City Council actions on Area Development Plan No. 45, previous zoning action on the property, and the recent concern expressed by the City Council that the most recent reclassi- fication development did not allow for the extension of Hilda Street from its present terminus to Sunkist Street and directed staff to readvertise the area development plan in order ta determine the necessity and desirability of extending Hilda Street to Sunkist Street at a public hearing; that the general alignment as depicted in Exhibit "A" would provide additioaal vehicular cir- culation and accessibility within this residential area; that there were 176 R-1 lots north and east of the property through which Hilda Street was proposed to be extended, and based on the Traffic Engineer's figures, these lots would generate approximately 1,760 trips per day, with the only means of access by way of Maverick and Paladin Avenues; that Hilda Street ran southerly from Maverick Avenue for a distance of 2,000 feet and was stubbed into the parcel at the northeast corner of Sunkist Street and Ball Road; and that all those homes south of Paladin Avenue had only one means of ingress and egress. There- fore, the extension of Hilda Street from its present terminus to Sunkist Street would appear to provide better traffic circulation through the area and provide additional access for fire and emergency vehicles. Mr. Edward Wallin, attorney representing the property owner, Albert Toussau, through whose property the proposed extension of Hilda Street would occur, appeared before the Commission and noted that the property owner was in opposition to the proposal, and then referred to the Report to the Commission wherein staff stuggested two reasons why there was a need for this extension - however, to refute one of the statements, he had traveled the distance from the fire station on Ball Road at Belhaven Street to the southerly end of Hilda Street, and it took him only two minutes, therefore, it would appear there was no great need to provide this second access for emergency vehicles. Secondly, in addition to taking considerable land from the property owner, a ' greater risk to children would result if this street were extended, since it could bring considerable traffic from the freeway off-ramp through this residential area; and that at a previous public hearing on a zoning action, these single-family residents indicated their opposition to extension of Hilda Street. .,.~ _ .~ ~~f' . . . _ . . . ... • _- ~ - ~ _ ., f . . . . _ ~ +~I~ '~ '~- .,!w ~ ~ . S•r.r. +,...' ., ' ~. _ .. ' . . . - .. ~ . ~ _ , . ~ . . . . ., . _.. . ,_ . _... . . ~ , . _ ~ ` _ . ^ 1 ' . . _ ~ . . ~ .'L •~ ~~~,J~ .' Y _ ~ _ r . . ~ ~1 ~ NINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~une 28, 1971 71-411 AREA DE'VELOPMENT - Chairman Herbst inqu3red whether or not Mr. Wallin was PLAN NO. 45 aware of the number of zoning requests made previously (Continued) and which both the Planning Commission and City Council had denied on all but one - that one being for R-1 zoning. Mr. Wallin noted that most of the area to the south was undeveloped, and over a period of time this could be developed for commercial uses along Ball Road particularly - therefore, to commit a piece of property to dedicating for a s*_reet without any significant need for it made this property virtually im- possible to develop, and that it would aot be feasible to develop this with a cul-de-sac as the property northerly of the stree*_ extension would not be suitable for single-family use with the type of traffic on Ball Road. Commissioner Gauer inquired what was the general feeling of the Commission regarding extending Hilda Street when it was considered previously. Chairman Herbst noted it was his opinion before that Hilda Street should be ;~ ~ extended. r: ; s 'r ~ .^ _ _.. '~' .:;~ , R"~i~ .+~e +~ ~ f, ~ .. Zonirg Supervisor Charles Roberts advi.sed the Commission that when subject property was first considered for R-3 zoning, the Planning Commission had indicated concern that this street should be extended; this was later denied by the City Council, and when reclassification to R-1 was considered, the residents to the east of the property expressed concern, since they were not in favor of extending this street because this would disturb their quiet neighborhood, and at that tfine the Commission approved R-1 zoning but did not require Hilda Street to be extended. Mr. Wallin further noted that the freeway off-ramp traffic, as well as future commercial use along Ball Road, could generate considerable traffic through this single-family street. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the owner of the property would still be opposed to the area develop~:ent plan if flexibility of location were considered. Mr. Wallin stated that the flexibility would be of little assistance since his client did not want the street thr~uqh his property, and any consideration of extending the street farther south would be of little help. Mr. Roberts noted that an area development plan did not establish the precise alignment of a street, only the need for the given circulation, and then noted that at the most recent R-3 consideration on subject property by the City Council, both the City Council and City Manager expressed concern and the desire to have this street extended for drainage, circulation, and emergency purposes, since this extension would eliminate these problems. Mr. Wallin indicated there was a drainage channel east of the row of eucalyptus trees on the easterly property line, and these trees may have caused problems ' with leaves falling into the channel, eyen though it was sufficiently wide enough to take care of any drainage in the area. Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that this drainage channel ~ was wide and was put in as a temporary solution since there was no other outlet, ' but there had been a maintenance problem, and since it was constructed origi- nally as a temporary measure, it was the City Engineer's opinion that the drainage should be confined to a street, and if the area development plan were approved, this could be accomplished. , Mr. Slaughter noted that although there appeared to be adequate time to handle a fire, as Mr. Wallin stated, there was an additional problem in that the fire truck which would serve the last four parcels, because of the width oE the street and the fact that it was a stub street, would not permit the fire engines any turn-around area unless the private driveways were used. ! Commissioner Rowland inquired whether or not this channel was proposed to provide drainage for the freeway; whereupon Mr. Titus replied that if the drainage channel were to remain, it would be extended to the north side of the o£f-ramp and eventually drain into Ball Road, however, this would increase the length of the open channel - therefore, the City Engineer would prefer _. ,,, ~, _ . . 4 . i ~ ' ~... .,W ~', _ '"` j:~. y . •_i -. t . . _, , , ;_. ; , ! _ . _ - , ~ . . , . _ . ~~~~ _ .~ 'f' ~ ~ ~ k i'' ~~,; ,::: ,: ' ..~ .. !.ii:3: "~Sl:';$ i`. ,: ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 28, 1971 71-412 _ :~ -.~ ~.. R~ AREA DEVELOPMENT - that it be placed into a street - if Hilda Street were PLAN N0. 45 extended, this would provide the street needed for (Continued) drainage. Commissioner Seymour asked for some reply to Mr. Wallin's comment regarding traffic coming from the freeway; whereupon Mr. Titus stated that any reference as to volume, it would be natural to assume there would be additional cars going there, however, this would be local traffic of the residents or their guests in this area, and it could be assumed that those living at the northerly end of the street would prefer to take Sunkist Street to either Maverick or Paladin Avenues since the permitted speed was greater on Sunkist Street than on Hilda, a local street, with fewer problems as to pedestr3ans, and it could also be assumed there would be no greater number of cars than if these cars were coming from the north. Commissioner Seymour then inquired as to possible problems with left-turns from the street and freeway off-ramp traffic, as well as possible commercial traffic. Mr. Titus replied that the street would be approximately 300 feet north of Ball Road, and in the opinion of the Traffic Enqineer, this would be an adequate separation of the streets to take care of left-turns and heavier traffic. Commissioner Kaywood was of the opinion that the people using Hilda Street would be either going to or from their homes since there would be no reason for people to use this street otherwise. Mr. Wallin stated that people would prefer local streets to arrive at their destination, and then in response to Commissioner Kaywood's comment, stated that this was true, that the cars would be residents or their guests going to these homes. Mr. Titus noted that it was possible that some people would use the local street, but it could not be assumed that everyone coming from the south would be turning at Hilda Street. Mr. Wallin stated that by opening this street to Sunkist Street, this would be a major whange to the residents who had enjoyed their privacy by permitting additional traffic to gain access through their street. THE HEARING WAS CI,OSED. Chairman Herbst noted that it would appear that the Planning Commission and City Council stated that subject property should be developed for low density ~ residential use; that since circulation would be needed, the street should be extended through to Sunkist Street; and that if proper circulation patterns of traffic were not provided throughout the street system of Anaheim, it would be very difficult in handling traffic. Commissioner Kaywood noted that she was sure people were not happy with motor- ; ists using their private driveways to turn around when they were at the south end of Hilda Street; therefore, extension of the street would resolve this problem. Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No.•PC71-122 and moved for its passage znd adoption to recommend to the City Council that Area Development Plan No. 45, j Exhibit "A", be approved with the possibility of flexibility of location of the street. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSiONERS: Alired, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; Farano. ' - :.w~: s:~ ,~~~.c~<t ; ': ~ `~ ' " _ 1 . . s.: , `~. :e!.:' * ~: , r~ i ~ ::! <~ ; ~ ~:~ ~ i I' 1 : 1; j _ j ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNTNG COMMISSION, June 28, 1971 ~ 71-413 AREA DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING PLAN NO. 108 COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to consider vehicular access and circulation proposals for the area bounded by Kraemer Boulevard on the east, `.a Palma Avenue on the north, and the Riverside Freeway on the south. Associate Planner pon McDaniel reviewed the study area of Area Development Plan No. 108, noting its boundaries and that the area consisted of 80 acres; that the plan was to explore the desirability and necessity of a collector and local street system which would provide adequate access and be more bene- ficial to the overall traffic circulation of the area; thczt the resulting street design should serve as a guide tor development in a-der to avoid problems which may occur, such as the construction of a permanent structure in a location which would be detrimental to the circulation plan. Mr. McDaniel further noted that of the 80-acre site, 65 acres was still within the jurisdiction of the County; that there were four oil well sites, two of which were currently active and werP set back sufficiently from any existing or proposed streets, thereby being in conformance with the Oil Drilling Ordinance; that two storage tank sites were also within the area; and that with the exception of one residence, the area was vacant; that future street patterns should conform to drainage patterns; that a loop collector street beginning and ending with La Palma Avenue appeared to be desirable in order ~ to obtain complete traffic circulation; that a frontage road along the freeway ~ would allow industrial developers to front-on a freeway, rather than rear-on, ' and industrial standards would make this a more pleasin view and ~ industrial developments better freeway exposure; and that two majorrlandlowners ~ adjacent to White Star Avenue were of the opinion that this street should be ~ retained for their present and future use - however, if it were left, it would be required to be upgraded to local and industrial standards with radii provided at both ends so as to provide a 90 degree intersection with intersecting streets.; Mr. McDaniel then reviewed the four alternatives prepared by staff, noting that staff would recommend adoption of Exhibit "D" as being the most desirable from a circulation standpoint. Mrs. Carrie Coykendall, 15332 East La Palma Avenue, owner of the property south of La Palma Avenue, west of White Star Avenue, appeared before the i Commission and stated that she did not want White Star Avenue abandoned since ~ the street was important to them; that they had originall ~ to the County for the street and did not want it deeded backitonthem;Pthatrty they were not happy and did not want the proposed 90 degree corner indicated on Exhibit "D" since their property would not be near this intersection, and they already had plans for their property at that intersection, and the proposed intersection would interfere with these plans - then, in response to a question by the Commission, stated she was not at liberty to state the use intended, however, at the present time they onl.y planned to continue raising oranges; and that they wanted to retain the area in its present state. Chairman Herbst noted that the City had to do long-range planning so that proper circulation was available or planned when other pToperty owners in the study area were ready to develop. Mrs. Coykendall noted that when the property owners met in the Development Services Department to discuss this circulation, Mr. Kraemer presented a map which proposed the street to go through the Kraemer property, and if a portion of the Coykendall property were used for the streec., her home would again be in the middle of the road, and since she had moved her home before when White Star Avenue was established, she was not desirous of noving again; i:hat twenty to forty years ago on the Kraemer propert}~ there appeared to be an easement for a road from La Palma Avenue, although she did not know if this was to extend through or just part-way to the south to allow for access to the southerly acreage; and that she would prefer that no street run through or use a portion of her property. Mrs. Coykendall then, in response to questioning by the Commission as to what alternative she would prefer,.stated she would prefer that the area remain as it was. . . . _ . . ' . ' i . "~ . ~ ~~:~:.:';S~ ~ . . ... . .. . . . . ~ . ' _a . _ .~ • . i - ~ - , • ~ ,~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 2g, 19~1 71-414 AREA DEVELOPMENT - Chairman Herbst noted that with these future plans for PLAN N0, lpg freeway exposure, this would increase the value of the (Continued) Coykendall property, and in the future the be sold for industrial develo ment• Property would needed some pattern of circulation~throughrthateareaYso that properties would develop contiguous to the street pattern. Mr. McDaniel informed the Commission and Mrs. Coykendall that if Exhibit "B" such time were consiasrshefwasrread~ forei~pment would occur on her property only at Y Mrs. Coykendall then stated that the Kraemer map presented at the meeting with staff and the property owners indicated a street down the west side of her Property, returning back to Blue Gum Street. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted that considerable acreage was involved, and unless ths City could incorporate a circulation system, there was a possibility that development would occur with more streets in the area than required; however, if some kind of a circulation system was adopted, then this would give an indication to future developers of these Properties what they would have to provide in the form of circulation and stubbing of their streets accordingly, ~. _'~ Mrs. Coykendall concluded by stating she did not want White Star Avenue ; abandoned, and this was her primary concern. '?:k"~",, THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. _ ~ ~.~n~'' Commissioner Allred noted that since an axea development y~ written into it it was ~ Plan had flexibility - r'' ~ his opinion .~hat Exhibit "D" would be the most satis- , z,~, factory, provided, however ;;-.+;:'~4 Avenue should be alon ~ that the street extending southerly from La Palma ~`~'~`~~ exclusivel g the west side of the Coykendall :`'" property and be located r,;;,p~ y on the Kraemer property. <a `ry~y._ Commissioner Rowland expressed sur rise P that something of this importance rj.,~~ brought only one person out; whereupon Mr. McDaniel stated that staff had a Fy~,,-„? meeting with the five or six property owners, and the onl expressing any concern was the property along the east sidePofPWhite~Star z.?sj Avenue whose development would re uire a ;~ a street were not provided, they would developheral-type road system, and if ,"~x,' p private drives. Mr. Thompson indicated that most of the propeYty owners expressed the opinion ``,,r~ that they wanted some type of circulation for the area. ~• ~`~i Chairman Herbst was af the o ini~on that ~' Star Avenue p the 90 degree inter.section at White and Za Palma Avenue .~a:: unnecessary and should be eliminated ;;.,~j~, from Exhibit "D" if Exhibit "D" were considered favorably. t ~; Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. and adoption to recommend PC71-123 and moved for its passage ~ to the City Council the establishment of a circula- tion systen~~. in the Northeast Industrial Area by approval of Area Development y-~ Plan No. 108, Exhibit D~ ~ eliminate t ~~ ~~ Provided, however, that Exhibit "D" be modified to _ he 90 degree intersection at White Star and La Palma Avenues, (See ."~ Resolution Book) ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the Eollowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; ~ NOES: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Row? ~ COMMISSIONERS: None. and, Seymour. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSiONERS: Farano. ';: _•,-~ ;;; * ~c t. :~''-"'; t '., 1 . '~ V.i• a .. S . .. ~~. J~ ~ ~': Y~ J., I ~~ ~~, , ls. .w, ~" ~ .1 \ d -.s ~ 71-415 ~:~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING NO. 70-71-59 .. • COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that r , ~ p operty described as: An irregularly- shaped are f a o land consisting of multiple parcels located generally north of Orangethorpe Avenue w t , es of Imperial Highway, a.nd east of Concerto Drive be reclassified from th _ x e COUNTY O? ORANGE A1, GENERAL AGRI- COLTURAI,, DISTRICT to the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject pro ert noting that it was th P y a.~ .' r.:, nor of Orangethorpe Avenue, west and southwest of Imperial Highway ~ and east f ~~ , o Concerto Drive; that the annexation proceedings had been initiated in accordance with standard Cit oli i +~r y p c es and procedures, and the zoning would become effective wh `: en annexation was completed; and that a portion of the property was under consideration for ~ C- a. : ' pre-zoning before the Commiseion. :' ~: ~ No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~~ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-124 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council the establishme on t f n o R-A zoning property in Petition for Reclassification No. 70-71-59 subject t tion to th ~ ` ! , o annexa- e City of Anaheim. (See Resolution Book) ` 3~ ~ la On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin vot -c g e: ,< i~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSiONERS N ,;~-:' ,';~~~ ; one. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. RECESS - Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recess the meeting for ten minutes. ~ammissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 3:45 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Herbst r.econvened the meeting at ~:55 P.M., all Commissioners except Farano were present. CONDITIONAY, USE - PUBLIC HEARING. DENNIS W. AASE, 2240 West Orange Avenue, PERM2T NO. 1245 Anaheim, Caltfornia, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISA AN AUTOMOBILE DISMANTLING BUSINESS FOR REBUILDING AND WAREHOUSING AUTOMOBILE PARTS IN AN EXISTING BUILDSNG, WITH INCIDENTAL RETAIL SALES on property described aS: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a fror,tage of approximately 42 feet on the north side of Adele Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 171 feet, and being located approximately 310 feet east of the centerline of Pauline Street, and further described as 709 East Adele Street. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL~ 20NE. +,:r3~ ~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, :' existing zoning on the property, and the request to permit an automobile dis- ':.~'~? mantl3ng business for rebuilding and warehousing automobile parts in an exist- ",i ing building, there being two buildings on the propezty - however, the ~) petitioner was proposing to use the rear building; that there would be ;; incidental retail sales; that the applicant proposed to utilize 2500 square ;~ feet of usable area in the buildina; that the applicant also contemplated ~ eventual expansion into the structure on the front of the property which was `~-'.` presently being occupied by another industrial user; that the applicant was ~ proposing to dismantle sports cars and rebuild, recondition, and store the '~; salvaged parts; that the applicant indicated there would be very little retail ;;-M sales conducted on the premises since most of the parts would be either ~`"-, delivered or shipped to customers; and that the Planning Commission would have , ~ to determine whether the proposed use was appropriate, and if so, they might wish to condition approval upon the use being conducted completely indoors, including the storage of any automobile parts or bodies which were to be _ scrapped. ' __ i ' ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, aune 28, 1971 71-416 CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Dennis Aase the PERMIT NO. 1245 ~ P~titioner, indicated his presenae to answer questions. (Continued) Chairman Herbst inquired whether or not this operation could be confined totally within the building; whereupon Mr. Aase stated that they were imit' g the'r sa~aqin operation to Porsches only, since Orange County had ~----~--~~, and because no new parts were available for models earlier than 1966, many of the people driving these vehicles needed they were dealing with only one type of vehicle, the rearrbuildingtwouldlbee sufficient - however, when the lease expired for the fron,t building, there was a possibility they might expand. ~~"" ; Chairman Herbst then inquired where the ^ whereupon Mr. Aase replied that these would1be~storedtindthetfrontrportion~ofes; "~` 'G the building they planned to occu thi -~ would then be taken to a bod Py' S area holding nine vehicles, and these ' S sell man bod Y-crushing firm. However, they would be able to Y y parts since this was one of the hardest parts of the Porsche to ~ obtain. ~ Mr. Aase, in repl,y to questioning by the Commission reg~rding the volume of retail business, stated that their wrecking business was done through a phone system or contact wi;h the owners of the Porsches, and as such, the sales would generally be conducted over the telephone and .; bY~ t~ r~ther t~~thla~~tome comin to the buildinrts would b delivered a-~.w` 4 g~ -~.,"~Pi ~~t~ i o~ # Mrs. R. M. Monreal, 607 East Adele Street, a p ~ ppeared before the Commission in opposition, stating that it was her opinion this would be a junk yard; that when the trailer company was buildinq the trailers in this building, they were ; very clean, however, she did not want this area to have the appearance as that ti~ in the 300 block; that it appeared that all the trash and wreckinq businesses i were moving into this area; that although she did not live adjacent to this ,~ property, she did have a neighbor who dealt in junk; that the i 300 block was supposed to be terminating their business in Februaryrthowevere ~ ~ they were still active there, and the rats, dirt, and debris and everything _j were increasing daily; that trailers and campers manufactured in this area ~ ~ were stored outside, but were maintained in a neat manner; and that she did ~•:~ not want wrecked cars to be stored outside. ~ '~ Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the Siegla ; C~mpany property located in the 300 block of Adele Street regarding their "legal" operation. ;ii h; I Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that at the time the Zoning Enforcement Officer checked the premises, all storage was indoors; I however, after a visit by the Commission to the area today, the appearance was ; not that which had been cantemplated. by the Commission or the City Council, and since they had originally started prosecution proceedings but had to stop ' when the property became a conforming use, they would again commence investi- gation and prosecution procedures. : Commissioner Seymour, in response to Commission Gauer's question as to the ,y length of time granted for tne Siegle use, stated that the Commission had granted six months for the petitioner to wind up hi.s business, but if he maintained his storage indoors, then it would be within the realm of the M-1 Zone. r: i Mr. Roberts noted that the staff had received a number of calls from residents : in the neighborhood expressing concern about the proposed use and indicated e~ , ': that if the use were approved, they would request that some form of screening f. r be provided along the chainlink fence, similar to the t on the junk storage yard which had metal slats. YPe of treatment placed Iw Chairman Herbst was of the opinion that he could not see an s. - ing off this use when the junk yard in front of a single-familyahome,~.wasscreen- , considerably worse. ,i ~y~ ~z Commissioner Seymour indicated that aesthetics if the applicant would agree to constructing a sim~ilar ~ much to an area, and ~ junk yard, if this were a YPe fence as the other pproved, he would be more in favor of it; where- `*. upon Mr. Aase stated that Y.e would be willing to place these metal slats in ;~ ; the chainlink fence and noted that the camper-trailer manufacturer had an ~ ~ ~ ,,. ....,, ' , . _~. ,.__~~.___ .... . _ _ :..,-,F= , ~ `• r. t ..._ . `x ~-. _ r, ~' . .~r ~ _ .. , ~ ._ \, _ ' "y _ l . ;; ~., __ ,. f .n -.J ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 3une 28, 1971 71-417 CONDITIONAL USE - assembly line using the driveway and had 30$ of his ,t ' ' PERMIT NO. 1245 storage outside, whereas they proposed to have all of ~~ ~ + ` ~ (Continued) their storage inside, primarily for security reasons = ~ this storage had to be indoors; that he had discussed with the 2oning Representative the conditions of approval relative to the alley and it d , was etermined that since the alley was only 18 feet wide, h~ would have to dedicat e one foot, and from his observation, it would appear that the building was located immediatel on th y e alley property line. w ~.::` ~ t' ~ ' Office Engineer day Titus stated that the Commission could require a condi- tional d di ,~ ,>;.; . ..,; e cation if this were the case; however, he had viewed the property the zevio k i ~ p us wee , and it appeared to him there was a setback of at least 1~ f . .. ~ ~ . (,j eet from the adjacent building. i ~i it . + Mr. Aase replied that this was only part of their building. `•' Mi. Roberts noted that this could be a condition flexible enough where either dedicati 1~ on or conditional dedication would be required so that the question could b - ' e resolvEd as to whether or not the building was already located on th ;t. e property line. ;: r' ' Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to the amount of noise this use would ?' i generate; whereupon Mr. Aase stated that they would be straightening out body t ,.,~r ,;~; par s, which did create some noise, but was no noisier than the nearby , , ' ornamental iron works. ~ ~: Chairman Herbst noted that the property had been zoned M-1 for a number of i~ year.s and that it was located adjacent to a railroad track. ~~ ~~ i ~ ` Commissioner Kaywood indicated that there was also single-family residentiai ~ uses adjacent to this property. y :.~ ~ Chairman Herbst then stated that this was ideal M-1 property, and he could not s ~ ee anything different from this property by requiring screening than there ~ , ~ was from other properties in the industrial zone. , .> ~ ~ ~ ,~ Commissioner Seymour was of the opinion that because of the unique situation y.i ~ wherein M-1 was adjacent to single-family uses and people did reside in these ~ ,~; homes, the City should provide every protection for these people, and industry i y ,~] ~~~ would have to take steps to work out thE compatib3.lity of their use with the ~ R 1 ' - ; and that steps should also be taken to get rid of the undesirable a - ?; , uj ~'.~ ppear ance of M-1 uses in this area. ,i. ., A showing of hands indicated four persons present in opposition. r THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ;'i7 ' i~ t" y ` Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-125 and moved for its `~ passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1245 '~ , , prov3ded that all the dismantling business and storage of parts would be ~ ~: : ~ conducted wholly within the building; that the owners of the property deed if . '? , the existing buildings were not within the future right-of-way line or , conditionally dedicate, if the existing buildings were within the future ~ ~ right-of-way line, to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 10 feet in width f , ~ rom the centerline of the street for alley widening purposes; that metal ~- ~ , opaque plastic, or'wood slats be installed in the existing chainlink fence ,,;:, along the west property line, as stipulated by the petitioner; and that y? r ~ ° Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 be complied with prior to the commence- ment of th i .; , ' e act vity au:horized under the resolution or prior to the time ~ ~~ ~ that the building pezmit was issued, or within a period of 180 days. (See ~, 3 Resolution Book) ~ ~=.i :' y'~ a:i; On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: , ~ ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland Seymour i; , . NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ;;, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ', °.'' `~:"' l ,~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON, ~une 28, 1971 ~~ 71-418 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBL=C HEARING. East Anaheim Christian Church, 2216 PERMIT NO. 1246 East South Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; MRS. PATRICIA CARLSON, Sunkist Nursery School, P. O. Box 6053, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABL~SH A NURSERY SCHOOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING CHURCH on property ' described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxi- mately 2 acres, having a frontage of approximately 165 feet on the south side of South Street, having a maximum deptn of approximately 618 feet, and being . located approximately 830 Peet east of the centerline of State College ~~;- Boulevard, and further described as 2216 East South Street. Property ~~" presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. - ;t'. ~i i ;;i •';^i i' ~ ~ >7 ~ •;~ ~ -'~ ~: ,I ~ ~ , ``~ ~~~~ ~ 1 _`J i ;' .~k! __ ,,~~ ~ `; . ' Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and }?:e proposal to establish a nursery school in conjunction with an existing church; that the school would be conducted in the building behind the main church; tha.c indoor play rooms and an outdoor play yard with children's play equipment would be provided; that according to the petition, the school was licensed by the Depa-rtment of Social Welfare for a total of 48 children, however, the schoab ;1ad maintained a steady enrollment of 33 children, according to the petition; that the petition further indicated that it was not anticipated this number would flectuate more than one ~ or two children in any case; therefore, the Planning Commi:~sioa would have to i determine whether the proposed play school would have any detrimental effects ~ upon the surrnunding and proposed single-family residential use, and if the ; use were deemed appropriate, the Planning Commission miqht wish to consider ~ establishing a maximum number of students to avoid confusion or misunderstand- ing at a later date. Mrs. Patricia Carlson, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that she was president of the nursery school, who employed two profes- ` sional instructors, and she would be in charge of the school; that they had been ~~ operating for eight years in the East Anaheim Methodist Church; that they did ' not have handicapped children, although they did at one time have mentally ; retarded children; that the nursery classes were divided into two separate ~ groups, the Monday and Tuesday class having 15, and the Wednesday, Th »rsday, and Friday class having 18: that the license issued by the State Department j of Welfare permitted a maximum of 2a students per group, but because they were ~ desirous of having smaller groups to teach more effectively, they never seemed to exceed 33 for the two groups. j Chairman Herbst inquired whether the petitioner would stipulate to a maximum number of students; whereupon Mrs. Carlson stated that they would stipulate to the maximum number permitted by the State Board, which was 24 per group for at any one time. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-126 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1246, subject to conditions and limiting the number of students to no more than 24 at any one time, as stipulated to by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foll~wing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. VARIANCE NO. 2269 - PUBLIC HEARING. RALPH L. RICKMAN, ET AL, 1740 North Santa Fe Street, Space 20, Compton, California, Owners; HAROLD BUTLER, 120 North McPherson Road, Orange, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT THAT PARCELS OF LAND HAVE FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET, TO ESTABLISH SIX ILLEGAL PARCELS AS CONFORMING PARCELS on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 194 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 615 feet, and being located approximately 284 feet west of the centerline of Clementine Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. - ;~i '_ - ,, . - . ,.: _. ~~ .... . rs °- tR _ ~, 5 6 _ ' ' ~ ' -' i _: , , z ,,~,. ~ . i.'. " , ' . . _ i t ~ b ~. .C,^•"*.` - . ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~une 28, 1971 VARIANCE NO. 2269 - Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission (Continued) that a representative of the petit.ioners wished to make a statement regarding subject petition; therefore, staff would not review the proposal. Mr. Dale Heinley, 611 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, attorne,y represent- ing the applicant and user of the property, appeared before the Commission, noting that after having reviewed the problems presented by staff in the Report to the Commission, it would appear that the recommendation of develop- ing these parcels as one was the most feasible; that although their plans were almost complete and he was in contact with all of the property owners, he would request a two-week continuance to resolve the problems presented by staff. However, if these problems were not resolved within said two weeks, he would request an additional continuance. Commissioner Gauer expressed the opinion that if the petitioner was not sure he could resolve all the problems in two weeks, he should request a four-week continuance in order that the great amount of paper work could be reduced. Mr. Heinley noted that with seven property owners it was difficult to estimate the time needed; therefore, he felt a little extra paper work was warranted. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue consideration of Variance No. 2269 to the meeting of July 12, 1971, to allow time for the attorney representing the property owners to resolve their development problems, as requested by the attorney. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE N0. 2270 - PUBLIC HEARING. WESTGATE-CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, 1477 South Manchester Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; ADVANCE ELECTRIC SIGN COMPP:IY, pttention: Robert Van Gerpen, 1120 Towne Avenu~, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMIIM NUMBER OF PERMITTED FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (2) MINIMUM HEIGAT OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, AND (3) PERMITTED LOCATION OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, TO ESTABLISH EXISTING SIGNS AS CONFORMING USES on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 395 feet on the west side of Manchester Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 654 feet, and being located approximately 870 feet north of the centerline of Alro Way, and further described as 1477 South Manchester Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to rebuild and struc- turally alter one of the existing free-standing signs, said sign having been constructed prior to the enactment of the Sign Ordinance - therefore, it would be considered a legal, nonconforming siqn, however, subsequent to the adoption of the Siqn Ord.`.nance, a permit was requested for a second free-standing sign, and when the building permit was applied for, no information was provided indicating the existence of a previously-constructed free-standing sign. Later it was learned that this was a second free-standing sign, therefore, the permit was null and void since it was not in conformance with the Sign Ordinance, nor was a variance granted. In view of this fact, there were two free-standing signs on the property, one which was nonconforming and the other illegaZ, approval of this variance was necessary to legalize the second sign and permit alteration of the existing nonconforming sign. In view of the numerous signing problems which had arisen in the Commercial-Recreation Area, the Commission would have to consider the desirability of requiring both signs to be incorporated into a single free-standing sign, and given the length of the property, this treatment would be more consistent with the intent and purpose of the Sign Ordinance. Mr. James Butler, property manager for subject property, appeared before the Commission and noted that approximately eighteen months ago their corporation acquired Casualty Insurance Company, and after operating the company in close conjunction with the State Insurance Commissioner, they requested a change in name to Westgate Insurance Company; that subsequently, Walker & Lee, the prime lessee, had the facia for one of their signs in front of the building changed, and they, then, contacted a sign company to manufacture and install a new facia in their existing sign - which would be considered changing copy of a sign and no building pernit would be needed - however, when the sign company : lin:~ ~ = ~ 'I~~,.w .s.wa.x?~ ;::_,. • - r, ~ ~ . ~'~ _~ ._ I ~ -. _.r` ,, ~ :_ , : ~ `~ ~ "~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~une 28, 197]. 71-420 VARIANCE NO, 22~p - recommended that the frame be replaced or rebuilt because (Continued) of its condition, this necessitated a buildin that the sign was in conformance with the building~require- ments; that the free-standing siyns were low silhouettes, which added to the symmetry of the building and a landscaping; that these signs acted as directionalporrlocatoresigns fromhseuth Manchester Avenue; that they were not interested in erecting signing to attract business from the freeway; that the etitioner to never received notice that the sign was a nonconforming signisand~thatgthehad owner felt some identification was needed. Furthermore, the existing signs were there for the past five years an3 they had established landscaping around them. The Commission inquired whether or not this sign would replace the existing gi3n: whereupon Mr. Butler replied that the signing proposed would be located in the same place as the original sign, and reconstruction was only necessary because the sign company felt the existing free-standing sian was structurally unsound for the copy changing proposed. Commissioner Allred then inquired whether or not the Planning Commission and City Council had approved these signs. ; Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that one sign had been established before , ~; the enactment of the Sign Ordinance, and when the second free-standing sign ". ~; was constructed and the representative of the r: building permit, no information had been submittedewhichWindicatedsthere was ~'; an existing free-standing sign on the property, and since no on-site inspection ~,~ was made prior to issuance of the building permit, said buildin si issued in error, However, field inspection was now made a re u1,aYermit was '- ~ issuaace of a building permit to verify whether or not to allow saidasignf and ~, he did not know who represented the property owner when said sign building _ „_s~ permit was requested. ~~ Mr. Butler advised the Commission that their major tenant, Walker ;~ requested said sign at that time. & Lee, ;~ z~ Chairman Herbst noted that the Bank of America had requested ~ sign, although they had a large roof sign similar to that of Walkerl&rLeePe r:,~ therefore, he felt there was no di£ference in this request and that of the ? Bank of America whose ~~ ~ petition the Planning Commission had denied, and to f~ grant this request would be denying the Bank of America a privilege which Walker ,. .,A; & Lee presently enjoyed. :~ > Commissioner Allred stated that approximately two weeks ago he had been in ~ the Casualty Insurance Company's parking lot, and it appeared there was a shortage of parking spaces. ;~j s Mr. Butler replied he did not feel this was so; however, when they had acquired i the building, they had been assured there was space for 160 vehicles, which % exceeded their needs. i~ ~`~ Commissioner Allred inquired whether or not code parking was bein ~ r ; and if not, it should be required. 4 Provided, ~: Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that he did not have the information available as to code parking. . ,~ , ~ Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the pr~:posed sign was already ,:. constructed, and if not, could the signing be incorporated into the Walker & ,,,_, Lee sign, thereby having only one sign, ~;". = ~« ~; Mr. Butler replied that he did not think Walker & Lee would be anxious to ~ combine their sign with the insurance company sign, and since they were the }" major tenant, they were not desirous of creating any discord. ~~ building~was thewWalkers&rLee Building andlnotgtheain the a ppearance that the ~:d surance company building. ;~ No one appeared in opposition. ,. * " ;~ ., THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. I '~';,: - a~~ ~ ~~~, - .- . - _ " '" . . , .. . . : r~ . - ,.s-. :~'t.,- } S. ~ . . `':''i,,. . ... . .. ~ . . ~ . ... ~ ~ . ~ ' . . ~ ~ ~ ' ~ +~ .. ~ . ~ ...., . .' , ' ,. . . , `'t-_' • ' . . ... .. ~ '~ . ..-~~, . ., .. . .:, .~ ::~_.:. .. ... . , ..~~. . . . . .. , . ~ :~ .` - - ---- ----~- ~ ~ r - , 1 ~ MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 28, 1971 ~ ~ 71-421 VARIANCE NO. 2270 - Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission ~ (Continued) regarding the reauest; the fact that the second free- standinq sign had been granted in ignorance of the previous ~~~ signing approved; that the signinq was attractive; and ~ that it would appear the petitioner was just remodeling an existing sign. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-127 and moved for its passage and adoption, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2270, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Seymour. NOES; COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. VARIANCE NO. 2272 - PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM KUGEL, c/o Summit Mortgage Investors, 555 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, Owner; COLDWELL, BANKER & CO., 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, Agent; requ>,-:sting permission to EXPAND A NONCONFORMING, FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approx.imately 10 acres, located at the northwest corner of Euclid Street and Crescent Avenue, having frontages of approximately 620 feet on the west side of Euclid Street and approximately 739 feet on the north side of Crescent Avenue, and further described as Euclid-Crescent Square. Property presently classified C-1 and C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NES. Assii;tant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the request to establish an existing 75-foot high, 3124-square foot, nonconforming sign as a conforming sign, whereas Code would parmit a 350-square foot sign; that the applicant was now proposing a 90-square foot addition to the existing free-standin,q.sign; that the size of the sign was measured by drawii~g a rectangle around the outer perimeter of all of the small signs, as well as the small "thingamabo~" atop of the existing sign; that while most of the signs in the structure had been added with the necessary permits,~three of the signs had been constructed with- out benefit of build.ing permits; and that in view of the already gigantic size of this sign, it was doubtful that a hardship existed which would justify expansion of the existing sign - therefore, approval of this variance could set an undesirable precedent for similar requests. No one appeared to represent the petitioner. Zoniny Supervisor Char~es Roberts noted that he would contact the agent for the petitioner to determine whether or not they would have someone present, and the Commission could consider this item at the evening session. REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE IN ARTERIAL CLASSIFICATION FOR IMPERIAL HIGHWAY. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter noted that Imperial Highway was classified as a secondary highway between Orangethozpe Avenue and Santa Ana Canyon Road, and as a hillside secondary southerly of Santa Ana Canyon Road, and that present land use trends indicated t at consideration of a higher highway classification to carry anticipated traffic volume~ appeared to be warranted, therefore, staf~ would recommend that this item be set for public hearing. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not this change in classification would be necessary if a large portion of the property north and south of the river were acquired for a park or because of flood conditions. Staff advised Cummissioner Kaywood that these classifications would still be necessary. ~: ~ ~ ' _ ~ ` - _--r~ ~L r i ~.~: , ; ~ , ~ . ~ ~ ~'" -~..~...~ __ 1 _~ . , ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~une 28, 1971 71-422 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 1 (Continued) _.-• _ ....r ~ ' Commissioner Rowlaad offered a motion to direct staff to set for public hear- ing consideration of a General Plan amendment to the Circulation Element - Highway Rights-of-Way to consider an arterial change for Imperial Highway, both north and south of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. w_:^'~ The public hearing was set for July 12, 1971. ITEM NO. 2 ~ REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF CONDITION NO. 8, Ts' ~ TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7198. :~ ~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commission a letter from Anacal Engineering Company requesting clarification of Condition No. 8 of '= the Commission's action on Tentative Map of Tract No. 7198, noting that the ti property was a 2.8-acre site proposed for subdivision into 12 R-O zoned lots - - located on the west side of West Street, approximately 940 feet north of North Street, and then read ~he condition as approved by the Commission and the interpretation of the engineer regarding said condition, requesting , : clarification as to whether or not the sidewalk should be a full 8 feet wide, r or whether the sidewalk need be only 8 feet wide around the fire hydrants ,<; and street light standards. Commissioner Rowland stated that the condition should have read as set forth ' by Anacal Engineering Company. ,i 1 Discussion was held by the Commission relative to their action taken on said ~` tract, and inquiry was made of Office Engineer ~ay Titus as to the reason why ;j the City Engineer was of the opinion this was required. _~ '+i Mr. Titus replied that there was still a question in his mind as to considera- 1 t tion of only a 5-foot sidewalk since these sidewalks would be next to the ~~~~ curb, and for safety and convenience, due to the fact that this street would _ i~ b e u s e d f o r access to t he L ittle League park, the wider sidewalk was determined ~ „~ to be more appropriate. {~ Commissioner Seymour noted that it was the Commission's intent that the side- ~ ,i~ walks be only 5 feet except where they were adjacent to light standards or ~~ ~ fire hydrants, although he would agree the statement made by ,Hr. Titus that ~:.~ for safety's sake it might be better to have the S-foot sidewalk. , ~;":'t• Commissioner Kaywood noted that in the Westminster tract they visited, the ' ;y hydrants in the sidewalks did not present a very pleasing appearance; whereupon et Commissioner Seymour noted that th3s tract also did not provide for the 8 feet , of sidewalk around the fire hydrants. _ ~ Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to note that for c7.arificatiun purposes, Condition No. 8 of ~ the Plannin Commissio n s r 4 esolut . ion shoul d have read. "Tha ~~ t th - . e cross s ection '_::~: of Street "A shall be a 40-foot curb-to-curb travel way with 5-foot PCC sidewalks - increased to 8 feet in width where fire hydrants and street standards were proposed to be located s all be provided an shall be +~ appr~p he City Engineer." ,,~~~,~,~~~ ~~~, y; VARIANCE NO. 2272 - Mr. Roberts advised the Conmission that upon contacting .~.: (Continued) the agent for the petitioner, he had requested that the ~: variance be considered at the evening meeting, and he would ~° attempt to have a representative present; however, if none appeared, then the a- . ~ Planning Commission should continue the variance for two weeks. :>, Chairman Herbst then sL•ated that Variance No. 2272 would be considered at 7:30 P.M. ,?.. RECESS - Chairman Herbst declared a recess for dinner at 4:55 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Herbst reconvened the meeting at 7:30 P.M., all Commissioners being present except Commissioner Farano. . R-~. a~ ,'; .._:f . . .. .... } ~ ~A .~ . : d:' .. ""_ ': ~~.'~. r, ~ ~.: . ~ ., :. .. .. , . • {.nY . ~T J.~....; , . ~ . . ~' . . . ~ ~ ' . . . ~) '~.. ..~.. .~` ' ~ .... .•3 " _-'^ •~r . ~ . .~.~. .• .. . . . ~ . . ~ ' ~ ' . . _ ~I.:.ti.. - l ..... . ' \ . . . . - _ . .. , . ~ ' ~ ~5 ~ e -. . . 4 . '' l . . i, . ~~ " ~ ~ . ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 28, 1971 ~3e7 71-423 VARZANCE NO. 2272 - Mr. Slanghter again reviewed subject petition as presented (Continued) previously for the b~••neEit of the representative for the petitioner. Mr. Carl Lanz, architect representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that they were not proposing any additional square footage to the existing sign which was constructpd prior to the existing Sign Ordinance; that the size was as staff indicated, although they did not intend to add more to the signinq; and that the existing sign was very unattractive, and they planned to rework the existing sign structure in order to give additional advertising space for an organization that wa.s not part of the original lessees. Chairman Herbst noted that whenever a nonconforming sign was proposed for modification, the Sign Ordinance would require that said nonconforming sign be brought into conformance, even though a sign had been built some time ago; and that this was the purpose of the Sign Ordinance, so that the City could eliminate the unattractive, large signs previously approved. Mr. Lanz noted that if this were so, then the City was not encouraging improve- ment of unsightly signs; that he was one of the advocates of sign contro,l since his practice took him all o-,*er the world, and he would agree with the Commis- sion's feelings that if the sign could be reduced in size, he would take this into,consideration. ;,;~;'_ Chairman Herbsi: noted this had been a requirement in other shopping centers ~~ throughout the city and cited the signing of the East Anaheim Shopping Center '; where their signs were integrated and signing reduced with signing on both _, '="h~ streets rather than as the petitioner proposed, only for Euclid Street. ~~ Mr. Lanz indicated that they were open to su a ggestions from the Commission. ~~ Commissioner Allred noted from his observation it appeared possible to alter ~ l~ the sign so that all the signing could be included within the topmost panel ~;_~ between "Euclid Square" and "Pilot Foods" - this would include removing the small signs and the proposed new addi.tion to a different location between the -:;;~u~ "Carpeteria" and "Pilot Foods" panels - this would reduce the sign considerably ~'"~P but still would not meet Code requirements. i ~;; ;c~1 `•+5- Chairman Herbst noted that he would not want to give the petitioner any hope, however, he would not approve any sign that r~as three tjmes greater than the "~": size permitted by Code, and since the petitioner was planning to remodel the ~'~ existing shopping center, then changes to the sign should also be in order. ~. ~ ', i? Mr. Lanz noted that there were several ;:undred feet on both streets. `~ '° ~ Mr. Roberts noted for the Commission that sub'ect > signs, one on Crescent Avenue and one on Euclid Streeterso longdasathetsigns ~ were 300 feet apart. Mr. Lanz noted that any signing on Crescent Avenue would not give the proper identification for the shops in this centar'. • Commissioner Seymour noted that subject property was extremely large, and he wou13 agree that signing on Crescent Avenite would be useless, but he would also agree that the signing should be reduced; however, some consideration should be given to the need for little or no signing on Crescent Avenue by allowing a larger sign on Euclid Street since the major portion of the traffic flow was on Euclid Street. Commissioner Rowland inquired whether or not the signing for the Anaheim Shopping Center (Broadway) located on Crescent Avenue was in conformance since the petitioner indicated that signing on Crescent Avenue was restrictive. Mr. Roberts noted that the signing was in ~onformance, and for further back- ground, when the signing on the East Anaheim Shopping Center was integrated, the Commission approved a sign 450 square feet instead of the 350 square feet required by Code. Mr. Lanz noted that since the City had approved the sign previously erected, ~ the sign company felt that they could erect a simi~.ar size sign; therefore, ~*~' had gone ahead and built this sign, and the Commission should take this into <~ ; consideration. i I i ~ ~_ ~: ,. .._.._ : - _ . . .. . . . . . ' . , ' . rf ... ~ ~ . ~~ ~,r--~.~...~.w~i _ . . . ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ . - 1 ;~ . ,. . ~ :~: „-~: ~ ' `, ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 28, 1971 ~ 71-424 VARIANCE NO. 2272 - Chairman Herbst noted that all major sign companies were (Continued) present at the time the Sign Ordinance was being drafted, and they stated they felt the Sign Ordinance was a good one and one which they could live with as it presently existed. Mr. Lanz noted that the sign company felt they were complying with the Sign Ordinance since they were not adding to the existing size of thE. sign, and that he did not feel this was a variance situation. Chairman Herbst was of the opini.on that Crescent Avenue had sufficient vehicular traffic to be considered as a street frontage for signing since both streets at the shopping center across the street had effective signing on the same street. Commissioner Seymour noted there was only one single-family tract and apaxtment developments west of Euclid Street and Crescer:t Avenue, while the shopping center on the east side had other de:relopment, as well as the post office, that offered more vehicular traffic exposed to the signing of said center. The Commission noted that they had a study in progress whereby all nonconform- ing signs would be amortized; therefore, since this was being considered for remod~ling, the petitioner should take this into considezation. Mr. Lanz suggested that the Commission approve the remodeled, existing sign, ; and when the amortization period took effect, they would then comply with the requirements. Commissioner Seymour noted that if the Commission did as Mr. Lanz suggested, they would be doir.g two things: 1) perpetuating a nonconforming use and setting a dangerous precedent since the Commission would have no reason or justification to say "no" to any other petitioner for a variance of a similar nature;. and 2) when the amortization schedule was instituted, the proponents of the nonconforming signs or changes thereto would present th~ argument that they had just invested thousands of dollars in a sign and now the City wanted them to amortize their sign - thi.s would set them back considerably, and they would have a very logical argument. Chairman Herbst then reviewed the original date of construction of the sign as it pertained to amortization and the additions that had been made to the original sign; therefore, he felt that the amortization had already been taken care of the Crescent Sguare sign. Discussion was then held re~ative to the length of time that would be necessary for the submission of revis.:d plans, and upon its completion, Mr. Lanz advised the Commission that he could submit a revised plan to the staff by Friday, July 2, 1971. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2272 to the meeting of July 12, 1971, in order to allow the petitioner to submit revis,ed plans incorporating suggestians made by the Commission and to bring the sign more into conformance with the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ERNEST A. COLLINS, 1421 East Santa Ana NO. 70-71-60 Street, Anaheim, califoraia, Owner; LEE BRUCE, 1854 North Tustin Avenue, Orange, California, Agent; property described , VARIANCE NO. 2273 as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of aporoximately 125 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 140 feet, and being located approximately i05 L-eet west of the centerline of Bond Street, and further described as 1421 East Santa }1na Street. Property presently classi- fied R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WATVER OF MINIM:JM LOT WIDTH TO PERI~IIT SUBDIVISION OF A PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS. ~ ~i ~~3 ... r. .. ~ry ~ . . .. . . . r~~ ,. ; I~9 ~ _ _ _ : . ~ I ~ L ~ ~ . ~^ .--~ ~~ . . 1 ~ `":t4 ` ' . I i : ~ `;'~"""' ~ ~ ~ ~~ ._ : ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~une 28, 1971 71-425 RECLASSIFICATION - Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed NO. 70-71-60 the location of subjecL property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to subdivide the 125- VARIANCE NO. 2273 foot wide parcel into two R-1 lots, the most easterly (Continued) lot presently developed with a single-family residence, ~ said lot measuring 63 feet wide by 140 feet deep, whereas the westerly lot woul4 measure 62 feet by 140 feet, and Code would require a minimum lot width of 70 feet - however, in view of the fact that the proposed parcels would excecd the minimum area required for the ;-,~~,,: R-1 2one, and given the narrow dimensions of other lots in the area, the proposal would appear not to be detximental to the area. ~ s, ;: + The petitioner indicated his presence to answer questions. ~~ ip~' ~ THE Ht,AR2NG WAS CLOSED. , :~ ;. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that Condition No. 7 of the reclassi- fication should be amended to require it to read, prior to the reading of an „`: ordinance, Condition Nos. 1, 2, and 3 shall be complied with; and that ~. Condition No. 8 should require Condition rlo. 4 to be met prior to final building and zoning inspections, instead of Condition No. 5 and 7. ;~ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-128 and moved for it= passage z., and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for RecYassifica- ~~~ tion No. 70-71-60 be approved, subject to conditions as amended by staff. ~, (See Resolution Book) - `' On roll call the foregoing resolution was '~: passed by the following vote: (~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ;~~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-129 and moved for its passage ;.ti.~ and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2273 sub' , 7ect to conditions, ;' ti~ with the condition regarding the filing of a parcel map to be made a require- ;~ r ment of the variance ~.nstead of the reclassification, and to amend the time ~~ limitation to require Condition Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to be met prior to final y~ :{ building and zoning inspections. (See Resolution Book) :c:i ?, ~.; On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~<• '`~ ~, AYES: COMMISSIONERB: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSTONERS: None. ASSENT: COMDSISSIONERS: Farano. ,,.. ..;i RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. JENNIE L. DINKLER, 226 North Rio Vista ~ NO. 70-71-61 Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; FREDRI'CKS DEVELOPMENT r CORP., 524 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California, T VARIANCE N0. 2271 Agent; property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel "~;i of land consisting of approximately 9 acres, having a i frontage of approximately 476 feet on the south side of Frontera Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 1,244 feet, and being located approximately 630 feet west of the centerline of Armando Street. Property presently classified R-A(0), AGRICULTURAL (OIL PRODUCTION), ZONE. ~. ' REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPL~-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ~ ~ ~~ REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM DISTANi:E BETWEEN BUILDINGS, ~+'. ~~, ~2) MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF AN R-A ZONE, AND (3) MAXIMUM DISTANCE FROM A. UNIT TO ~; A CARPORT, TO ESTASLISH A 193-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. ~~- Assistant Zoning Supervisor Mal.colm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject ~' property, uses established in close proximit~, and the proposal to establish a 96-unit apartment complex on the south side of Frontera Street, north of the future Jackson Avenue; that a second 97-unit apartment complex was proposed on ~ the south side of Jackson Avenue; that two-story construction was proposed ~,;': within 150 fpet of R-A zoned property to the west; that the applicant was 't ~c ,'; , , ._ __... { , r~ - _-. ! '~.b. a~.."...^ .. _ ~ ~ _ _ . ~ ~ ~ ~'~' i ^ ~: -' ~'.~ "r ~ ~ :{ ~ 1 ~ -- ~ I • _ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 28, 1971 ~_) 71-426 RECLASSIFICATION - proposing waiver of the minimum 3istance between main NO. 70-71-61 as well as between carports and main buildings; that ~ the General Plan projected this area for medium density VARIANCE NO. 2271 residential use - therefore, the proposed zoning would ' (Continued) appear appropriate; that the waiver of the maximum build- ~ ~;' ing height was technical in nature due to the fact that the General Plan designated this area for medium density residential use; and that the waiver between main buildings was at four locations and was between two living units, a waiver which had seldom been ' approved before, and this trea~ment appeared to qive a somewhat "barracks- ,,,,,,r ; ~ like" appearance which appeared inconsistent with the intent of the Zoning "' µ~ Ordinance. There fore, the Commission would wish to consider the waivers q~ ~ .: ~~ , requested in t..he variance. ~ Q;.e..' . . a _ ,, , :ti ~ * _~;~. ~ .;.. , i ~ ~ ; `,~; Mr. Jim Soules, representing Fredricks Development Corp., agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and presented photographs of a similar project, noting that since the Report to the Commission was received and because revised plans had been submitted, waiver of maximum distance from a garage to a unit was no longer required, and they would revise plans and caithdraw the request for minimum distance between main buildings, but would still propose the waiver os the minimum distance between the garage unit and the patio; that they were proposing a 200-square foot or more patio; that early California mission architecture was proposed with wrought iron and tile roof; that no elevation from within or without would give the appearance of a long, barracks-like appearance; and that the mechanical equipment woulci be provided within the roof itself. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-130 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 70-71-61 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ', ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ' Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-131 and moved for its passage I and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2271, in part, based on the ' fact that the petitioner withdrew waiver of maximum distance from a garage to a unit by the submission of revised plans and stipulated to complying with Code requirement for minimum distance between main buildings, however, still requesting waiver of the distance between the carports a:id the patios or main buildings, snd subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ROBERT H. GRANT CORP,, 1665 SOUth NO. 70-71-64 Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land ' CONDITIONAL USE consisting of approximately 75.2 acres, having a frontage PERMIT NO. 1247 of approximately 1,526 feet on the north side of Walnut Canyon Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 600 TENTATIVE MAP OF feet, and being located approximately 6,000 feet southeast TRACT NO. 7444 of Santa Ana Canyo,n Road. Property presently classified COUNTY A1~ GENERAL AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT. REQUESTED CLASSTFICATION: PC, PLANNED COMMUNITY, ZONE. REQL'nSTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: SUBPIVISION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY INTO 25 SINGLE- FAMILY LOTS AND 51 CONDOMINIUM LOTS. __ ..... ... _,_ , . ~.. , . ~ ~ : - . ~. _ _ . . . ., ... . . .. .. . ~. ~ ._b . . 1 . . i '~'~~:. . ,. . .: ~. ,, , . I .. . r-~ ,:fi:: , ~ ~t5. _ 1 f ;~; - xi :~a . ~f ~ ,, >. ,. R , .~e - ; , ~ c ~ ~. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June t8, 1971 , ~_~ 71-427 RECLASSIFICATION - Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location NO. 70-71-64 of subject property, uses established in close proximity, CONDITIONAL USE and the proposal requesting the PC, Planned Community, 2one PERMIT N0. 1247 to be established in conjunction with a conditional use TENTATIVE MAP OF permit and the tentat~~+e tract request to subdivide the TRACT NO. 7444 property into 25 single-family lots and 51 condominium (Continued) lots, this being the first phase of the Anaheim Hills project proposed by the Grant Corp., a part of the property considered as the Hill and Canyon General Plan approved in 1965 and formerly known as the Nohl Ranch; that on April 6, 1971, the City Council approved a General Plan amendment which was the master plan of development for a total of 4200 acres of which subject property was a small part; that the Council also approved a c.hange of zone from R-A to R-x-10,000 on May 25, 1971, on 163 acres of which this was a part - this was prior to the creation of the PC 2one which was ccnsidered to be a better zone to imple- ment this proposal; that the applicant proposes to develop this 13-acre parcel into two portions, one area devoted to condominium development and the other to detached, single-family development; that the condominium portion of the development would consist of 51 two-story units, most of which would contain three and four bedrooms, and less than 108 of the condominiu~ units would be developed w;ith only two bedrooms; that the subdivision map submi.tted with the application indicated 25 single-family lots would be developed in the single-family portion of the project -however, no floor plans and only a typical plot plan for the single-family area had been submitted to date, therefore, no comprehensive evaluation could be made for this portion of the development. Mr. Roberts, in reviewing the evaluation, noted that the applicant's proposed plan of development had been evaluated in considerable detail by members of the Interdepartmental Committee, and it was concluded that there weie innumer- able problem areas still to be solved, and a brief analysis would be presented concerning the major problem areas for consideration and evaluation by the Planning Commission; namely, A. The Anaheim Hills General Plan, which was created upon a General Plan amend- ment being approved by the City Council, that increased the densities in this area to accommodate the proposal; that representatlves of the Grant Corp. pointed out that one of their major goals was to retain as much of the natural terrain as possible, and it was noted that one way of accomplishing this major goal was to cluster or group housing units in areas that were most suited for development and leave the more difficult terrain in its natural state. I Mr. Roberts then noted that. under Terrain, this had been a key factor and would ~ continue to be a key factor in the development of the hill and canyon area, and the 13-acre site under consideration had a ridge through its center which rose to an elevation of approximately 665 feet; that the proposed development would level this ridge to an elevation of 570 feet, which the Engineering Department advised would necessitate the removal of more than 600,000 cubic yards of earth. Under Street Standards, flat land street standards were not always considered to be appropriate for development in the hillside areas, however, the City had adopted hillside street standards approximately six years ago, an3 to date these standards, while they were minimal, had proven to be satisfactory in the hill and canyon area. However, the proposed development plans indicated street width, street sections, cul-de-sac lengti~s, and cul-de-sac radii that did not conform to Anaheim's hillside standar~s since they proposed a 46-foot wide street in the single-family portion and a 37-foot wide street to serve the condominium portion of the development, and in instances where a double access street was proposed, the City standards would require a 56-foat width right-of- way; that a 35-foot, 5-inch cul-de-sac property line radius was proposed at the , end of both streets, whereas hillside street standards would require a 48-foot radius; that the curb radius proposed by the netitioner was 30 feet, whereas the hillside standards would require a 38-foot radius; that the cul-de-sac street servinq the condominium development w~~ proposed to be 950 feet long, and the cul-de-sac serving the single-family development was proposed to be 770 feet long, and subdivision standards stated that cul-de-sac lengths exceed- ing 500 feet may be cause for disapproval of the tract; that it was the opinion of the Interdepartmental Committee that the street standards proposed by the applicant would be neither adequate nor appropriate and would present innumer- able problems from the standpoint of circulation of both pedestrian and vehicu- lar traffic, fire, and emergency service, as well as street sweeping and trash collection services; that the rolled curb proposed by the applicant in the condominium portion of the development would invite illegal parking on that side of the proposed public street and would further compound the afore- mentioned problems and restrict the roadway portion of the right-of-way. ,~ I ~;~:>. ~, i; , .~ 0 ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, dune 28, 1971 71-428 RECLASSIFTCATION - Mr. Roberts, in reviewing the single-family development, NO. 70-71-64 noted that the proposed develop~ent would be a typical CONDITIONAL USE R-2-5000 subdivision, however, the building pads ranged PERMIT NO. 1247 in size from 3200 squar.e feet to 5000 square feet, and TENTATIVE MAP OF the remaining lot area, according to the tract map would TPACT NO. 7444 be devoted to lk:l slopes; that the typical plot plan (Continued) subm:~tted by the applicant indicated that the garages and dwelliny units tvould be set back approximately 10 feet from the right-of-way line, and typical single-famiy zones required that garages be set back a minimum of 20 feet where the garage opened onto the street; that the rationale for the 20-foot setback requirement was to provide on-site parking other than in the garage since garages were frequently used for purposes other than storage of vehicles; that if the applicant were allowed to develop single-family units in this manner, the City could antici- pate cars projecting into not only the sidewalk area but the roadway, as well, and this situation, given the width of the single-family lots, the size of the proposed streets, and the lack of both off-site and on-site parking, would create major problems in regard to both vehicular and pedestrian circulation, street sweeping, trash collection, and adequate access and circulation for fire and other emergency services. Mr. Roberts then reviewed the Report to the Commission as it pertained to condominiums and open space and slopes, emphasizing the fact that prime open space typically was land that possessed development potential because it was land flat enough to be useful, and in the hill and canyon area developments of this nature should provide a significant amount of prime open space rather than surplus open space. However, staff was of the opinion that open space should be usable, not excess; that slopes proposed were lk:l and in the rear of each pad it sloped down from the units and, consequently, were not viewable to the owner of the single-family home, but experience had indicated that in many instances these slopes were not adequately maintained. Furthermore, normal subdivision requirements would require that all slopes should be included in the ownership of the downhill lot. Mr. Roberts concluded by stating that the concept street standards and site development standards approved by the Planning Commission and City Council for the first phase of the Anaheim Hi.lls project and for this particnlar site i could be anticipated to become the minimum standards that would be utilized on the entire 4200-acre ranch; consequently, it was the recommendation of the ~ Interdepartmental Committee that the applicant be given ample time and oppor- ~ tunity to revise his proposed plan of development incorporating City standards, and for these reasons, it would appear that an eight to twelve-week contir.uance j should be granted to permit the applicant the opportunity to submit a revised plan of development. Mr. Armando vasquez, representative of Anaheim Hilis, appeared before the Commission and stated they were before the Commission on three different items, and before he continued to state his company's reasons for making this presen- tation, he would like to start with several questions: 1) procedural - since three items were being considered, he would like the Chairman to tell him how these would be deliberated on - would each item take a vote? Chairman Herbst noted that each petition would take a vote as would the tract map. However, there were no problems with the reclassification, but there could be problems with the conditional use permit and the tract map. Commissioner Rowland noted that according to the City Attorney, if the Commission acted upon the reclassification, they must also act upon the tract map - therefore, if the Commission viewed the tract map with disfavor, it could be assumed that the reclassification would also be recommended for disapproval. Mr. Vasquez then inquired whether or not t:e reclassification would be approved, but later in the Commission's deliberation it could be denied because of the tract map. Chairman Herbst noted that the Commission would not approve the reclassifica- tion unless an action were also taken on the tract map - the Commission would be voting on all three items; however, no separate action would be taken on the reclassification if the conditional use permit and tract map were continued. i I, ~ ~ ,, r , , _ . . . .. ~Z .. . . ... .: ' - .~.. . . . . ... . ~.._ ':..;..~ . .- . ... . ~. . ~ . . ; ! P,. ;~ . .. . . . . . 1~ ..~ . -• . _ ' '. ' :~'{' 4~~ ,~ . `~. . " .'~.. " _ ~ ,i~~ ~ ~" L '"'~'~~r ... . . ' ~ _ ' ~ .: . . .. . ~ ~ +~r - , . . ' ~ ~ . . . . . ., .. .~ ~ ' ' ` . .. ~ . ~ ~ . ~. -. . . 'fi,,.. ~ ~`f ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 3une 28, 1971 71-429 ` ~~~~SS~~~CATIODI ~'Mx, 'Vasquez then ;~nquired whether there still would be NO. 70-71-64 three separate votes, but each would 'ue contingent upon - CONDITIONAL USE each other; whereupon the Commission confirme3 this. PERMIT NO. 1247 TENTATIVE MAP OF Mr. Vasquez then stated that the second question was the ' TRACT NO. 7444 fact that staff had apparently felt it necessary to (Continued) recommend an eight to twelve-week continuance. Did the Commission hold the public hearing open for the entire consideration of this presentation? ' .. .~:. `'' Chairman Herbst stated that the Commission could hear these items at this :`~;~ public hearing, or an eight to ten-week continuance could be considered, an.: ~ the public hearing would be held open until all evidence had been submitte3. ,i' '~, Mr. Vasquez then noted that the ap roach he would like P to take would be ~ basically using the Report to the Commission as an outline in describing the proposal; that the Commission was aware this particular tract, No. 7444, was a portion of an area within the Anaheim Hills, and in order to locate it, he would indicate the area on the map - the proposed country club and golf course ~ location was also indicated as it pertained to the tract map which showed the golf course wrapping around this particular piece of property; that this was still raw land and happened to be in almost the geographic center of the total planned development known as Anaheim Hills - 4200 acres. As mentioned in the Report to the Commission pertaining to this particular tract, there were 25 single-family lots and 51 condominium lots; that one of the first questions - which came up in this proposal was the fact that only 108 of the condominium would have only two bedrooms - this particular item came about because of ' FHA requirements in regard to the total number of bedrooms that they could >i anticipate within the total project. Another question that came up as part .# of the proposal was in regard to parking - the parking situation was based - ~ primarily on two requirements - FHA, who they proposed to present this to in ;~ order to insure their mortgage, and the other being the City of Anaheim. '.=1 While FHA required 2~ parking spaces per unit,.Anaheim required 1~ spaceM per =~ two-bedroom and 2~ spaces per three and four-bedroom units; that they had a total of 98 spaces, 12 of the spaces being located across the public street, ' and upon looking at this partic~:lar plan, tney found that their land planner '" had made a mistake, and, in fact, they could get a total of 110 parking spaces ~'~ by adding 4 additional parking spaces in a given location as he indicated on ;i the map, all the parking spaces being 10 x 20 feet. <! Commissioner Rowland then inquired whether the statement just made by Mr. Vasquez meant the 12 remote parking spaces would be relocated to an area ;'; where they could be used. Mr. Vasquez stated no, these 12 spaces still would remain where they were originally indicated, but they were discussing some of the discrepancies as ~ `• they found them which were mistakes of their own doing, and the 4 parki:~g + spaces should have been indicated as he had pointed out. , Mr. Vasquez then reviewed the general concept of Anaheim Hills, noting he _ would like to make a few comments: .l) he then read from the Report to the Commission regarding Anaheim Hills' goals (page 17-b, paragraph A) and then . stated he would like to clarify this statement by saying they were fully aware o£ their proposal when General Plan Amendment No. 123 was considered by the Planning Commission, and the proposal before the Commission now indicated •,I adherence to that particular promise made to the City of Anaheim in regard to the total project - this statement by staff could be very misleading in that this was representative of only 13 of the 4200 acres; that they particularly picked this site for reasons whlch he would explain under Item B, and this ,+~- was probably representative of a situation that occurred in only a minimum amount of land and not a total reflection for the 4200 acres; that staff was ~"'" well aware that they were anticipating development c£ the 4200 acres, and they were very much interested in finding out what the most critical conditions would be - therefore, as it pertained to this particular statement made in the Report to the Commission, they were attempting to preserve as much natural ~. terrai.n as possible and were leaving the more difficult terrain in a natural area; and that this did not represent the most difficult terrain in that development of 4200 acres. ., .. . . . . " • _ 0 _ ; , ; .;:~,. 2` ' . : R ~ .~c ;' ~ ~ ~.~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 3une 28, 1971 71-430 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Vasquez then reviewed the terrain as set forth by NO. 70-71-64 staff where staff indicated the terrain continued to be CONDITIONAL USE a key factor in this particular development; that the PERM2T NO. 1247 13-acre site had a ridge in its cent~r a TENTATIVE MAP OF 665 feet, as set forth in the Report to theroximately TRACT N0. 7444 and he would like to address further comments~to~thisn~ (Continued) namely, the report failed to give some of the background of how this particular grading came about: 1) When to develop it and intorderlforiitetotbesasite in the entire project, in order problems that might be faced with over thePentireP4200Vacrement, some of the there were limitations, not only physical but limitations they~hadttotmeetfinnd regard to the four boundaries of the project - the City of Anaheim had already gone into design of the golf course and progressed with construction documents along an area which he indicated on the map; the plans for the country club had also progressed, and the particular grade under the country club was set bY the City of Anaheim; in addition, there was a public parking area also located and indicated on the map, which also had the grade set by the City of Anaheim; then the alignment of Nohl Ranch was given to them by the City of Anaheim - therefore, in all four. boundaries around subject property, they were tied into a criteria that thcy had to meet and were happy to meet. Commissioner Seymour interrupted the presentation and noted he would like some clarification on the arguments being presented since it would appear that the representative wa;:c plannincr to go on to another field of discussion; whereupon Mr. Vasquez stated that he would be continuing along the same vein, and this would be clarified in his later statemen±s - that to this point he had des- cribed limitations which they had inherited with the project, some being physical, some being imposed by the Citp of Anaheim because this parcel was surrounded on four sides by public lands. ' s Mr. Vasquez then continued his commentary regarding access roads by stating there were two types of alignments for any public roads, one a horizontal alignment and the other the vertical alignment of the access road, going up or down hills or straight across, and as it pertained to horizontal alignments, tortheualignment1ofaNohlRRanchaRoade existineYandproached the City in regard the City presently had a roadwap leading to the reservoird~ theYCitund that stated that they would like ~to have immediate and continuous accessYtohthe !I reservoir on a paved street, therefore, indicating to them, that if they I wanted to realign this roadway, it would have to be realigned in such a I fashion that the access to the reservoir would be maintained. i 2) The golf course area already was set and was set during preliminary design that had been started. 3) Staff also made a comment on the grove of oak trees in this general area and all the existing trees throughout the project - they, too, were extremely interested in maintaining the natural environment, leaving the grove where it not~besduplicatedhinnanyrothervwaynexcepthby leaving~itbwheresitVwasor could I 4) Another limitation which was inherited, given all the criteria - the ~ course, the country club, the hills, the trees - left the. only realisticgolf logical place for a roadway was wh<.re the City had indicated the road should ~ be placed, Mr. Vasqu~z then reviewed the vertical alignment, notin h ' had to be considered in order to find out exactly what had to beldonerwithhthes ' road: a) An existing water line - presently located under the existing road - this tied them to the elevation of tha water line, and they could not deviate the elevation, they could not place more dirt on it and could not dig any deeper, which they did not want to do anyway because it was going the wrong WaY; the important thing to consider was the fact that they could not elevate the street without tearing out the water line and completely replacing it and Pr~bably going through private property to do so, instead of where it should be,;u~der the public thoroughfare. b) The paving was already there, which was something else to consider, and, again, the golf course entered into the picture because elevations had already started to evolve in this general area. Because of these reasons, they found themselves tied down to the existing roadway and its alignment to a given point which he indicated on the p1an. ~ i ,, ~ a_. ` .'L'.'.' ' ~ " . . p.. ~ ~~ ~~ ~, ;~ i , I 1 .i; ';a ,ti,: h~° .~ , ;. .::v :~ 5; ~ p ,_... ; - * `' aES! ': 3 l 5_ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, aune 28, 1971 ~~ 71-431 RECLASSTFICATION - Furthermore, they found little leeway in the opposite NO. 70-71-64 direction - what did all these statements mean to the CONDITtONAL USE Commission - staff was criticizing t:.em because they ' PERMIT NO. 1247 were removing 600,000 cubic yards of dirt, as developers, TENTATIVE MAP OF they did not want to move it and he, as a representative TRACT NO. 7444 e~ the design s*afi, did not want to do so for his own (Continued) reasons, namely, aesthetics as well as a developer's reasons. They had searched every way possible to keep from grading the land as proposed, and his foregoing statements were the basic reasons why they were proposing to remove this amount of dirt. The next question then came up - why develop this particular piece of land? - why not leave it in its natural state and place the roads through this? However, at the present time this partict~lar parcel could be defined topographically as he had defined it, and then indicated the various knolls existing on the land, their location, and the ridge with a saddleback of 35 feet extendinq to another knoll, these knolls ranging in approximate elevations from 625 to 610 feet to another knoll of 630-foot elevation, and the very map he was indicating evolved prior to a later map which indicated that they wanted to qrade this to 610 feet, only 15 feet below the top of the hill befure they found out they were "married" to the elevation. Again, why did they want to build? There were seven points he had brought out, poiats over which they had no control - why the roadway had ta be there, and if the Commission would accept this, then they could also see what would happen if this land were not developed, and this was the reason, because they wanted to preserve the street because there=~wa„s a canyon in this area that had to develop the width of the road in the manner indicated, soinething which the developer, the architect, and even some of the City staff had seen, primarily because of this and because of a 70-year old grove of trees they were trying ~ to preserve. What happened when a right-of-way was taken as wide as this ~ and an attempt was made to get some type of maneuverable roadway -this would ~ result in baving to cut into the ridge, and if the ridge were to be cut at ~ a 2:1 slope, this would end up in a cut that would be approximately 100 to 120 feet high, and simply what happened they would have to be cutting so deep ~ in order to put in this access road (indicated on the map) where the City ' of Anaheim required it to be located, they would have to cut on the other ' side to daylight on the other side of the crest of the ridge -"like a wedding + cake with a knife slashing through" - as people drive down this lane, they will see a cut if this land is not developed, a cut 100 feet high with a truncated ~ cone; when people come to the golf caurse, they will end up looking at this instead of the golf course - when people are playing golf from the opposite ~ side, they would not see a natural ridge line, they would see this very stark, ~ naked cut on the other side of the ridge, so that the only thing they could do to alleviate that and also to develop land, was to accept the fact that the cut had to exist because of this factor - this also was the only way they could alleviate the situation, which was to cut in not at 610 feet, as originally ' planned, because they were still playing with the idea of pushing the road up; then they found out that the road could not be elevated the 25 feet that they had planned to because of the water line. This was the reason for proposing the cut approximately 35 feet deep. Commissioner Allred inquired as to the number of feet involved in the water line. Mr. Vasquez stated he would like Mr. Jim McCarthy of vTN Engineers to answer that. Mr. McCarthy noted there was approximately 1,000 feet of water line involved, and it would cost approximately $100 per foot to relocate the water line, or $100,000. Mr. Vasquez then noted that the water line probably represented only 508 of this problem - it was thus hoped that he had communicated to the Commission the fact that they were doing everything in their power to maintain the natural terrain on this property since it was to their advantage, as developers; that at the same time this area and parcel was selected because they were concerned with the problems that would evolve that could be related to the entire 4200 acres, and it was their hope that he had communicated to the Commission how this major criticism came about. ~ 0 s i i ~L"~' ! ~ i ~ ~l c~ MINUTES, CSTY PL~,NNTNG COMMxSSZON~ aune 28, 1971 71~432 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Seymour requested that either Mr. Vasquez or ~ N0. 70-71-64 staff further elaborate on the reason why the road could ] CONDITIONAL USE not be realigned, particularly from the standpoint of the 1 ~ PERMIT NO. 1247 City since Mr. Vasquez had implied that the City was ~ TENTATIVE MAP OF requiring this. (Continued) Mr, Vasquez stated that directly or indirectly the City was requiring it, namely: 1) the golf course boundaries had been fairly well defined, not only the boundaries but the preliminary grading on two sides - then, in answer to Commissioner Seymour's question as to the time when these were set, stated at the time one of the plans was designed, the golf course almost had been determined, in fact, they had tried to cooperate with the golf course architect by moving one of the lines (and then indicated on the map) and the boundary had been relocated in order to accommodate the public parking facilities - therefore, in every way they were trying to cooperate; 2) tha grove of oak trees, about three acres - Mr. Vasquez then introduced Mr. John Pusse, representative of the land planning ~ consultant; 3) the existing access and pavement to the reservoir. TRACT NO. 7444 ~' Commissioner Seymour then asked how this affected them since it had been there for a long time - everybody knew it was there. Mr. Vasquez replied that if they could consider realiqnment of the road without the many impediments, such as the golf course, the hills, the trees, etc., that ~~ ` ' were not there, they would have to provide the temporary access and tie it ' ; in with the fact that this was the best alignment physically in order to get to the heights - they had no alternative - on one hand the pavement and the alignment of the existing road was there, which would be the logical place ; for the road; on the other hand, they had the physical limitations of the ~ ~ actual movement of the line, especially parts o£ the reservoir which they ' had to get to. Basically, what he was attempting to say was, the man who l ~ cut the road through did su because it was the best route so that when one considered the two points together, they were almost forced to that alignment. ' ~~ - ' Commissioner Seymour then stated that what he was attemptinq to clarify - did h'~` ~~ •;;,~ ' the City bring this on or was it economics sinca it a , ppeared to him what ;;;~:: ;r ,~i,~ r Mr. Vasquez was demonstrating verbally was the economic factor. ~ ;. "i~ Mr. Vasquez then stated that they would drop the discussion as to economics; "r:°• ' ..:=; that it would be to their advantage to retain the existing road alignment - ~ ~: however, there was still the golf course to be considered. I~ J 4 j ~~ ~ Commissioner Seymour noted he was not that familiar with the golf course to ~,;~ say why the alignment was being dammed at a given area, whp it could not be changed. •4 Mr. Vasquez noted that maybe one or two of the problems could be resolved, but ,`;E there would always be another one cropping up. :4 c:ommissioner Seymour noted that the golf course was there from the beginning ';'ry r~` this plan, and the road and reservoir were there considerably longer. <z •``; r. Vasquez stated that this was true, but with the assumption by staff and themselves that this would be the alignment which existed, staff did not state item for item that certain requirements were expected of them - it was a + ~:,~ natural process of evolution, and each time a decision was made, it locked them into a road, and when they finally got to a point where they saw what was happening - maybe staff would come back by asking why they didn't realign ~ ~' _ the road - those were their reasons at the time the project was evolving and ' 'r::: i were the same reasons now that appeared to be logical, and he did not think "" ; they were all a matter of economics. u~ ' '~~` - ' Mr. Vasquez noted a further consideration must also be made regarding the ~% ~: . water line - why not relocate the water line - water 1•ines, traditionally and obviously, were under public domain in order to gain access, and there were ~ ~ ~•' instances where they were located on private property with easements, but - generally they preferred, as planners did, to have them under public domain, and if they were tryinq to relocate the water line, there could be the risk of • having 3t within their projeot, which would mean drafting easements through . ~:_ private property, a situation not always desirable from the point of both a~e ,~ ': ~ ~_;~~~_`+1~! ~ -. . ,~.., _- . r~ ~ ... ~ . -_.. . . . . . .. . . , ~ _ ... ..~_ . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ , ._a a ~ : C~"'---~--.~."";' .~'s .. ~ ..:: s ~ . , --- ~~' _ r , __. , ~ l C:~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~ June 28, 1971 c,~~ 71-433 RECLASSTFTCATTON ~ the developer and the City, but they would have to NO. 70-71-64 consider its physical location,, where it was to be CONDITIONAL USE located, since water had to get: a rate of grades in PERMIT NO. 1247 order to get where it was destined to go, and if located TENTATIVE MAP OF in one area (indicated on the map), there would be low TRACT NO. 7444 areas and canyons and then moving it to another area (Continued) (also indicated on the map), these would all be high areas. They even considered having it go through the golf course, and this had evolved to the point that its present location was a logical solution. These points were not brought out to them by staff, one by one directly - the position had evolved at the natural evolution of the project - at the time each decision was made, it was being made by professionals who hau considered all the pros ann cons and came up with the best answers. This was probably the one problem around which this project evolved - the fact that the land was developed obviously for their own reasons - but it evolved in such a:.^.anner that good planning was always practiced within this area and the problems being unresolved were problems over which they did not have complete control. Commissioner 5eymour observed that if this were considered good planning where it was necessary to take off 600,000 cubic yards of earth on a 13-acre project, maybe the City should start to re-evolve on any development on the Anaheim Hill: project, or maybe come back and start all over again. Commissioner Rowland expressed astonishment that this technical information had not been made available ~o the people since these questions were quite interest- ing, but he felt the professional staff should be answering them at staff level rather than at a public hearing, and he £ound it incredible that the staff had not answered these questions - that there was such a total lack of communication of professional planners and professional staff of an apparently enlightened community. Mr. Titus stated that they had had several meetings with the developers of Anaheim Hills, and these technical questions had been 3iscussed a number of times, and if he could recall, the answers were given to them previously. Commissioner Rowland then inquired whether or not Mr. Vasquez was directing these technical questions to a lay Commission since he felt these should be directed for answers to the technical staff. Mr. Vasquez stated that there must be a matter of mis-communication because he ~ did not understand that these questions were answered, although Mr. Titus felt i they had been answered obviously. However, these were the only technical questions he had, and then asked that the second question be answered. Commissioner Rowland directed that the answer to the question be obtained at ~ staff level and not at the public hearing. ! Mr. vasquez then noted that in the deviation from the street standards in regard~ to the dimensions in one area it was minimal, except for a dimension and inter- ~ pretation, and that was the reason for his technical question, but according to the Report to the Commission, a 56-foot, double access with a 36-foot paved area,' should be provided, and on a single access, only a 31-foot wide paved area was required. However, they were proposing basically that the paved areas be exactly the same as City standards for double access snd single access. The only real area of question was the fact that in a right-of-way width there was a discrepancy of 10 feet on a double access and a discrepancy of S feet on a single access. However, in this 10-foot and 8-foot discrepancy, nothing was taken away from either the pedestrian or vehicular traffic since both sidewalks i and pavement widths as required were proposed, but the parkways were bein~ incorporated within the site of the dwelling, which was a standard operatinq ; procedure in most communities - therefore, circulation for both pedestrians and i vehicles was not being touched, and although it appeared that the 10 feet was taken away irom the green belt area, this was only legally, because the green belt would still be there, and they proposed a dedication of a 3-foot easement so that every function would be met by which a 56-foot right-of-way required except that the parkway, of course, would be within the dwelling unit site. ~ ~ i ~i'', . 5 ~ •.c , ~ _ . . . ^ ~ ... . ~ws .. . "", .. ~ : . . . . . !~. . - • ~.iT'..~~~u~~~" ~,,,~~ ._• ~~ ~ _ ~ .. ~ . . . . r . .~ ~ _ . ' . .. . . ' . . . . . ` ' ~'.,Y . I _ ,i '; ,_. ~~ ' ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~une 28, 1971 71-434 RECLASSIFICATION - Chairman Herbst interrupted by requesting that Mr. Vasquez NO. 70-71-64 "get to the meat" of this request since he was proceeding CONDITIONAL USE rather slowly in the presentation, and then inquired why PERMIT NO. 1247 the developer was asking for theye variances from the TENTATIVE MAP OF ordinance. TRACT N0. 7444 (Continued) Mr. Vasquez replied that they were asking for these variances because of the grading operation which had to take place because of the road alignment, the municipal golf course ` ' " and golf club, their desire to preserve the grove of trees, and because of the •~ ~ . ~ existing water line - that Y~ecause of these reasons they were forced into this ~,. ~ grading operation in order to do a half-way decent job, they were requnsting ~ ~ permission to reduce Commission. the street standards as described in the Report to the ~ Commissioner Kaywood noted that Mr. Vasquez had hit on a point - that they ~ were trying to do a"half-way decent job" - however, that was not going to be ; good enough. The presentation was not like the original plan proposed, and ~ the original plan was the reason the Planning Commission approved General Plan i ~;` Amendment No. 123 - they were looking for an excellent job, not a half-way decent •, ,,; job. ; j Mr. Vasquez noted that this had been brought up several times by the Commission; ~ ';~i however, he would like to ask the Commission whether or not they had accepted ,,~ the reasons he had presented why they were proposing the development as presented.~ If the Commission had not accepted his reasons in light of the facts presented, ' could each Commissioner honestly say that they did not start out with limitations p `+ beyond their control imposed directly and indirectly by the City of Anaheim. ~ ~ If the Commission could not accept these reasons, in fact, then the Commission ?~ chairman was correct~ and he was wasting his time. His attempt was doing nothing ~ F more than explain to the Commission how this evolved, how it happened, and it was ~ not a question of a developer coming in and trying to do §omething that was not ~ ~ right, but a question of ineeting the problems as best they knew how and meet?ng ~ ', the problem and presenting a project that woald do the job. That the Commission ~~: , should keep in mind in their deliberations that this represented only 13 acres ~ •,~., a,;;;~ '^:,:;,~~ of 4200 acres and did not prove or indicate that the concept was being destroyed ~ ;•;-.„,,m ~;~,;;. as originally presented by the Anaheim Hills. `.~: ,.~ ~ ,t . '`~ a, ~ T.... , - a':...:%.. , 'j ~~;~, . ~; ' ~ F;' Commissioner Kaywood replied that the concept was being destroyed, then read ~ from the Grant Corporation plan presented at the time General Plan Amendment ~ No. 123 was considered by the Planning Commission and City Council, and then suggested that if the developer could not do a good job on the 13 acres, he should try another area where he could do a very good job, since the de~eloper had taken a very beautiful area next to the golf course and was proposing to do something that was quite unpleasant from what she could visualize. , Mr. Vasquez noted he would not try to belabor the point - he tried to illustrate what would happen if this parcel were not developed - the figures did not lie, it was a sheer cut of 100 to 125 feet - staff had recommended an eight to twelve-week continuance, and he did not know how staff had arrived at that number of weeks, but he had been instructed by the president of Anaheim Hills that instead of a continuance, they felt so strongly about this project that they were willing to accept a denial on the basis that apparently the Commission did not like the proposal. ' Commissioner Gauer stated he would like to respond to that statement; tl~at the City had a planning staff that was perfectly capable of helping Grant Corporation to develop this area, and to say that the City of Anaheim did not want to see it developed - he did not propose to sit on the Commission and listen to all the technical talk when there were engineers on the staff who could take care of these answers, that was their work, and they could work with the developer so that the plan could be presented the way the Commission wanted the area to be developed - therefore, as far as he was concerned, it should be continued since he would not vote for a denial, and it should be continued until the developer could bring something to the Commission that the Commission coeld take action on, rather than: passing this on to the City Council and giving the developer the opportunity to present the same technical discussion as the Commission had heard, because the City Council did not know any more about the technical aspects than the Commission did. This was primarily a technical talk attempting to confuse the issue and ev~ding the things that should be done in the area to make this a livable com- munity, and this could be done if the developer wanted to work with staff. fIe would not vote for denial, only for a continuance. ~i.,,~ .'w'~:~~;;. .. . . _' . . . .. • ` ~ ~ ~a ._.~. _.l t. ' i~ s ., ..._._ ~~,_.~ ~.,,_! ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C.OMMZSSION, ~'une 28, 1971 \~ 71-435 i.ECLASS2FICATION - Chairman Herbst noL-ed that the Commission would be belabor- NO. 70-71-u4 ing the point because the Commission was empowered with CONDITIONAL USE doing a planning job before sending anything to the City PERMIT NO. 1247 Council, and as the Commission £elt it would be best now for TENTATIVE MAP OF the developer to accept a continuance in order to meet with TRACT NO. 7444 staff to resolve the problems presented in the Report to (Continued) the Commission, since the Commission had spent many months working ~n the Hill and Canyon General Plan and to get the the First proposal toccome inywhichtdidanot meetWtherstandardsYefurtl:ermore, he did not like the insinuat~on that staff had not given the developer this information regarding street widths - these were conditions which any developer would have to meet, particularly after the number of months the Commission spent on it. This area had a very unique problem and because of this problem, the developer was attempting to place more units on the property than it would support by proposing narrow streets, smaller lot sizes as discussed by the Commission; that Che Commission was very concerned with the livable environment ~f the home, streets, circulation element, and the plan presented for circulation •::s totally unacceptable to the Engineering Department, and the Commission, as laymen, must listen to the professionals and plan to continue to listen to them - therefore, it would be suggested that the developer recognize this would be something he would have to do. ' Mr. Vasquez stated that it did not expedite the Commission's or his concept to belabor the point, but this was a case pf not coming in cold without talking to staff since they had untold meetings aith staff. Chairman Herbst inquired whether the representatives of the developer listened to staff, and did they do something about it. Mr. ~::.,,~,;ez replied that they had done something about it, and the staff could subs_ .:iate that remark, but they had reached a point where they could not agree. Chairman Herbst c-ommented that if the developers could not agree with the engineering sta.~f, he was very sorry. Mr. Vasquez then stated, was the City of Anaheim so positive that the standards they had were correct in light of the fact that other communities had lesser standards, together with the fact that the City of Anaheim had very little hillside experience. Chairman rIerbst then stated that the Planning Commission did not have to listen to these remarks since the developer knew what the City standards were, and they would have to be met since these standards were established at many public hearings in order to establish these standards. :his was where the developer would have to start and continue. Mr. Leo Deterding, 21102 Santa Ana Canyon Road, app~ared before the Commission and stated he had lived in the Santa Ana Canyon for the past seventeen years, and he was notfamiliar with the area for development under consideration, but he had one statement to make, an~i that was that since he had been at many of these public hearings regarding standards, he hadn't heard many people talk about them, however, he had not seen anything of the public comments incorpor- ated into these so-called standards. Most of the time the decision had been made already, and then the Planning Commission informed the public of what they intended to do. Chairman Herbst then stated that the standards were set up for the hill and canyon area after the Commission had held many public hearings. Many of the street standards were a must for circulation, and if the City allowed e~-ery developer to change these standards, the City would not have a very good community. Furthermore, these standards were acted upon in the final phase by the City Council, who also held public hearings - therefore, the Commis:~ion was only the recommending body, and anyone could attend the public hearings. ~.~:~: r~ I_ ~ ' ~ . C . ~.. _ '` i '_ ~ V ~ .~ _ ~ ~,~. ~ i '.. _ , ~ Q MINUTES~ CxTY PLANNING COMMISSION, aune 28, 1971 _,.:~u. ,,, ~ 71-436 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Gauer tcok exception to Mr. Deterding's NO. 70-71-64 statements and stated that the Planning Commission had >,~:% . CONDITIONAL USE many meetings with the residents in Peralta Hills and ~"~''~ PERMIT NO. 1247 Santa Ana Canyon, as well as other areas, and the standards - TENTATIVE MAP OF were set with the assistance of the homeowners; that the ~ TRACT NO. 7444 Commission had given everyone the opportunity to speak, _ (Continued) even though everyone did not speak, and if the Commission pleased most of them, it was doing a pretty good job; and that the Commission did not keep people silent but listened to their sugges- tions and opposition. Commissioner Rowland noted the Report to the Commission regarding the proposed setback from the street right-of-way for off-street parking of these condominium units, and in light of Mr. Vasquez's presentation on street standards, inquired whether or not they were proposing the vehicular and pedestrian right-of-way as the City presently valued them, and how did it relate to these automobiles - would tne automobiles have adequate access to off-pavement parking, or was it a matter of the right-of-way line - since there appeared to be something he could not understand - was it a physical limitation by their setback from the v?hicular accessway. Mr. Roberts replied that the uphill side of the street serving the condominiums had one foot between the curb and the right-of-way line and five feet back to the carport structure, with a eotal of only six feet between the carport struc- ture and the travelway; however, they were driving directly into carports. Commissioner Rowland noted that he would listen to any constructtve proposal that limited the amount of paviag in any area of the community, but this was a self-imposefl limitation which appeared to be quite difficult, and it could be somewhat dangerous, however, the way he understood the roadway they proposed, the physical structures were everything which the City asked for in most instances. ~ ,, ,:. `:~ j:~;, . *'. , ~e `.` ~ a Mr. Titus stated that was not quite the case on the road going to the ~ condominiums. The engineer's interpretation wa~ that road had access on both ~ sides of the street, and according ~o the hillside standards, it would require • 36 feet from curb to curb. However, the Anaheim Hills' position states there i was only one side o= the street that was providing access, therefore, they ~ were proposing only 31 feet from curb to curb, but from all appearances, there ~ was vehicelar access from both sides of the street. Chairman Herbst expressed concern regazding Mr. Vasquez's statement relative to Walnut Canyon Road. Did the City Engineer's staff plan to cut this hill so that it would leave the cut open on the opposite side, regardless of what happened? Mr. Titus stated that this was true; however, the question as to whether or not the street could be relocated to another area was not answered, and he did not completely agree th~zt i;he street was tied down to one location. Commissioner Allred expressed the feeling that he would like to visit the site ; to get a more accurate view before he could make any decision, since it was his opinion that they were loading the J.and even if it wasn't necessary to make the cut. Therefore, he felt a con:inuance was in order so that additional information could be obtained, and that the Engineering Division should present this information. Chaia.man Herbst stated he wanted a report from the City Engineer on this, and if ti.:s would result in removing 600,000 cubic yards of dirt, this may be a wa~~ to solve the problem to get a better appearance and to make a better deve?.opment; that he felt the developers should bring the streets up to engineering standards as set forth in the Hillside Grading Ordinance; that the cut of the hill proposed might not be a problem if this cut would be exposed as set forth by Mr. Vasquez - however, if the road could be relocated without such a cut, then this was something else he wanted to have presented. Mr. Titus stated that he had been involved in the alignment study on the road and noted that the City Engineer had been working with representatives of Anaheim Hills regarding the street standards, but he could not answer Chairman Herbst's question now but he would attempt to obtain this information. 1 ~_~~_ '~`~... .. ~ ,.: f _a ~,~;:-. ~~ : . i , ' ~l ,a,~~~-- ~~.~....._-_- - -- 1 .: ~::J ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, u'une 28, 1971 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70-71-64 - Cha3.rman Herbst then observed what would be w CONDITIONAL USE ing some would orse trees or cutting away half of the ridge - remov- - which PERMIT NO. 1247 pre sion must sent the best environment e e is- TENTATIVE MAP OF line that recognize that there was 1,OOO feet of water would hav t TRACT N0. 7444 also. e o be relocated at a cost of $100,000 tContinued) Mr. Titus stated that it would cost $100,000 to relocate the water line, but in order to remove 600,000 cubic yards of dirt, this would cost at least $300,000. Chairman Herbst stated that he would prefer to have further information from ~ staff as to costs of relocation of the water line and removal of that amount of dirt, because he did not like the idea of wiping away a hill just to provide a road since trees could be replaced, but once the face of a ridge was removed, ~ it could not be ~eplaced. Commissioner Allred inquired as to the number of bedrooms proposed for the townhouses; whereupon Mr. Vasquez stated that since they were required by FHA to have a maximum of 108 of the units with two bedrooms, everything else would be three and £our bedrooms. Mr. Vasquez, in response to a question b ~ this was a requirement of any title in theCFHAiresidentialland, stated that single-family homes would be three and four bedrooms; that theyrdid nottbuild two-bedroom, sinyle-family homes; and that they had no definite square footage for the homes, but they would average 1250 to 1300 square feet. ' Commissioner Allred noted that the pad sizes were only 3200 to 5000 square feet. Would these sinqle-family homes be two-story, because of these very small pads; that this area was single••family residential oriented with a minimum of 7200 square feet, although there had been some deviation, it was never reduced to 3200 square feet sincz this was r.ot aa large as a beach lot in Newport Beach. ~ Mr. Vasquez replied that they were proposing a 10-foot front yard setback, and with downhill sloping it could be assumed there would be both one and two-story homes; and that they proposed a minimum of 20 feet for a portion of the flat yard, which would be the minimum condition, but in most instances these pads would be larger. Chairman Herbst noted that if only a 10-foot front yard setback was proposed, there was a possibility that the residents would be backing out of their garages into the public right-of-way, and the reverse would be true - that the car would be hanging over the public right-of-way while waiting to open the garage door. Mr. Vasquez noted they would have flexibility in their floor plans and could ' shift the garage toward the rear of the 1ot. Chairman Herbst noted that the Commission had never votefl favorably on an~• garages unless there was a means of providing for the vehicle to clear the public right-of-way since this was dangerous, and he did not intend to set a precedent, therefore, these were answers the Commission needed - however, the representative of the developer was not giving the Commission the answers they wanted, and a continuance was needed to prepare these actual facts of the proposed layout. Mr. Vasquez noted that the actual tract would propose garages within 10 feet of the public right-of-way, and that would be one of the things which the Commission would have to deliberate. Furthermore, one of the things t~eat must be realized in hillside development was that the usual flat land requirements could not be applied, and that he felt the whole proposal was within the re~`.m of the hillside and was not outside of the norm. Chairman Herbst then stated that the Commission was not about to vote or consider that proposal for the reasons previously stated, particularly because it was dangerous. Mr. Vasquez then noted that for clarification purposes in regard to a question by Commissioner Rowland about the driveways, he wanted to make sure that he did not mislead the Commission - that was the reason for requesting clarifica- tion, because he wanted to talk at length about it - although it was a double i ~ =:,z .-. _ _ "" _ -3'!~ '.,sc, ~h'~'~' - '.* . _ ~ , _ ' ~ , ~ _ \ _ _,, t . ,::.; _ ,. ~ + N s:::~.:::'~:. :'.~~'.~.~:~ . , ,i. . _ _ i f ;I. - - -- i , ~ ~ 4~ MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 28, 1971 71-438 ~ RECLASSIFICATION - access, it was minimal and it was justified beaause there NO. 70-71-64 were only three bays, and they complied with the single- CONDITIONAL USE family access requirement otherwise. ~"' PERMIT NO. 1247 TENTATIVE MAP OF Chairman Herbst inquired as to the length of time it would ~ TRACT NO. 7444 take to obtain the engineering report regarding the hill (Continued) being cut away in ord~r to proceed with Walnut Canyon Road, since there might be some reason behind what was stated by Mr. Vasquez. Commissioner Gauer inquired as to the number of bedrooms proposed for the single-family homes since there did not appear to be very much play area for the children; that although there was a small "tot" lot, it was a considerable distance from some of the homes; and that there was nothing between which could be considered recreational area. This information was also to be presented. ~ Fr ~ommissioner Seymour noted that before the Comm~ssion continued subject petitions, he noted Mr. Stark was in the zudience and he wanted to ask him a question. - ~; ~'~' Commissioner Seymour then inquired of Mr. Stark whether or not the Commission = had become so narrow-minded from the time the Anaheim Hills had been presented, ,_`>-;~~ or was this proposal a special ~arcel and the Commission should not feel that 1`- "=.?.y' they would be faced with any similar project in the future. ,s ~ - ~, Mr. Stark, vice president of Anaheim Hills Corp., appeared before the Commission ;; and stated this was an unusual piece of property, and the City would have to ;!=~ remove 40 £eet for the clubhouse, and there would be a 100-foot cut; however, ;~ ~~ it would be cheaper for them to remove the road and cut down 40 of the oak ,; trees, and there could be other 100-foot cuts if the City planned to put any ~ , S roads there. The 13 acres was a very small portion of a very large development, '` and they proposed to use any excess dirt to gracle other roadways and provide ~ ~' ; fill; that it might not be economical to do this, but he felt they could work i ,<_ with the planners, and they had waited until the Planned Community Zone had . ' been established - however, he wished to assure the Planning Commission that ~-~ : they were not becoming narrow-minded, and it was not their intent to change :'"''~~: their plans as originally presented in General P1an Amendment No. 123. Further- <'. more, a Planned Community 2one was just that - the standards had to be set ~ ;~ so that new standards would be aonstantly set, but it might seem very risky - ;r; to steal one or more feet, hut eve.ry foot they could save from cutting, they ~~ would try to do that, and that he wishea to assure the Commission that they were still planning to set out ~Lo do what their original intention was; that ~:~ he had done at least ten planniag studies of this area with ten different ~~•~ planning firms in order to remove as little dirt as possible - s~ome studies 'j came to removal of ten million yards and others were reduced to ~~ne million ' five hundred thousand yards - in order to develop they must remo~ae dirt; and ,r '~ that at least a million yards of dirt would have to be moved for the golf = course. Commissioner Seymour noted that Mr. Vasquez had suggested that the Anaheim -:"'~ Hills wanted a denial since they could not work these differences out with '_:1 staff at staff level, and it was his opinion that this was very p~or footing. Mr. John Pusse stated he was speaking for hia.self, although he had been working ~' with the dpveloper; that he had worked on hillsides for ten years in Laguna ; Niguel, Scripps-HOward Ranch, and others throughou' Southern California, and he `• wished to state that when pad construction was used ~.n the mountains, the larger " the pad the deeper the cut, and if street ~radients were used with a grade of ~=%~ 108 or less more cut of the hillside would occ-~r, and if one applied flat land ~`- '~ street standards, parkina, curb, and radii, sr : more dirt would have to be ;; removed. 'Ci~ Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Ttiompson advised the developer that for clarification purposes on a Planning Commission continuance, if two ,' weeks was determined sufficient, any revised pl%:ns must be submitted by Friday ~„~~~ ~~~~ of this week. The developers indicated that they would prefer a two-week continuance. *'<; , at+.! '; i ~ i .~-~,, . . , . _ . .. a~..~r~, .. '`*`....-.:._ . ~ . ~~ ~ ~ ". ~ . . . ~ ~ . ~ . , .. . . r . . .. . . ~ _ ..,., . ...., f . • . _ ~ . . `~ . , ' ~ . , .i;ia ~i~'S:? 'S~. . .. ~ , _ ~ _ i . I ..~,9 . - ~'~ .--rY' ' ..,` . ' ;~ ' ;: 'd ;1 r '~1 :f , ,;., '; ,: ;-, :'`; :; `,': ; ;: '~ ~" .~:c ~ ,-. ~~.~ ~. ~,~ {~ ~ r , _ ~ - ~ _ ~ ' ~ MINUTES~ CzTY RL~NNING COMMISSION, 3une 28, 1971 71-439 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continue NO. 70-71-64 consideration of Petitions for Reclassification No. CONDITIONAL USE 70-71-64 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1247, together PERMIT NO. 1247 with Tentative Map of Tract No. 7444, to the meeting TENTAT=VE MAP OF of July 12, 1971, in order to allow time for staff to TRACT NO. 7444 present engineering reports and for the developer to (Continued) submit revised plans. Commissioner Kaywoed seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NO. 70-71-62 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, to apply the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone to all properties within the boundaries of the scenic corridor in accordance with the recently-approved zone for properties within the City of Anaheim described as: All those properties located easterly of the intersection of the Newport and Riverside Freeways, southerly of the centerline of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way, westerly of the Orange County line, and northerly of a line located one-half mile south of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road, excepting therefrom all those properties in the unincorporated County of Orange territary. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NO. i0-71-63 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, to apply the Scenic Corridar Overlay 2one to all properties within the boundaries of the scenic corridor in accordance mith the recently-approved scenic corridor proposal in the event of annexation to the City af Anaheim; properties described as: All those properties located easterly of the intersection of the Newport and Riverside Freeways, southerly of the centerline af the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way, westerly of the Orange County line, and northerly of a line located one-half mile south of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road, excepting therefrom all those properties within the city limits of the City of Anaheim. Chairman Herbst noted that since both reclassifications were basically regard- ing the same subject except for their boundary lines, a].1 information would be considered under one public hearing. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of the property, noting that the property and its boundaries as set forth by the City Council in adopting the Scenic Corridor Overlay 2one as being the north- erly boundary the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad; the westerly boundary the intersection of the Newport and Riverside Freeways; the easterly boundary the Orange County line; and the southerly boundary a line parallel with and one-half milE south of Santa Ana Canyon Road; that these petitions had been initiated by the Planning Commission to apply provisions of the recently- enacted Overlay 2one to all properties within the City of Anaheim and the County of Orange within the scenic corridor area which would provide for development standards for the scenic corridor lying north and south of the Santa Ana River and to establish standards in anticipation of eventual annexa- tion to the City of Anaheim those areas within the corridor and within the sphere of influence oi the City of Anaheim. Furthermore, the (SC) Zone was formulated in order to protect and enhance the scenic and environmental characteristics of the area, and approval of this reciassification action would establish the application of the (SC) Zone over this entire area. Chairman Herbst noted that since this was a public heariny to establish the (SC) 2one on the properties in the canyon both wi*_::in the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim and the County, he would request all comments be made at this time. t•;r. Roland Nesmith, 6060 Santa Ana Canyon Road, appeared befozc: the Commission and noted he was not sure whether he Kas opposed to the proposed reclassifica- tion or whether he needed clarific~ition, and then inquired how this wauld affect him in reference to collector and arterial streets - what was the classification of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Mr. Slaughter stated that Santa An~ Canyon Roaa was an expressway under the presently-adopted standard. i ~a ~ ~ w~+ on~ri _ L . ... ~ii~ f_~--~..wy~s, ~ ' . ... ^ { G .. _~___l.'_ -_'___.-.- ~~__'_ _. 1 r ( _ _: . ' 1' " .. ~ ;,y . ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSYOnT, ,~une 28, 1971 71-440 RECLP,SST?~TCATTON - Mr. Nesmith then Stated that he had lived in this area NO. 70-71-62 for nineteen years and thought he would have a rural home, RECLASSIPICATION which at that time was ten miles from Anaheim; that he .~~ ~. N0. 70-71-63 felt he was being restricted of the possibility of devel- (Continued) oping his property ~co his advancage in the future, more _+ so than any development adjacent to him since he felt he was being discriminated against wI~en one viewed the development that had taken place to the west as to .setbacks, etc., and most _ people living in his immediate vicinity felt they s~ould be given the same rights in the future to develop their property, perha;s for commercial uses ~'-. along Santa Ana Canyon Roa3. ~'~'~ Mr. Richard Mackey, 523 West Sixth Street, Los Angeles, representing United ,~ j California Bank as trustees for the Mabel and Henry Bauer estate in which a ns ;~ 400-acre parcel adjoining the southerly side ~f San.•ta Ana Canyon koad at Weir ~} Canyon Road was located; that Weir Canyon Road would intersect the expressway ~I and would bisect the Bauer property; that they had just received the legal ~~; notice, therefore, they were not able to analyze the full impact of the proposal on their property. -_ ~ Chairman Herbst inquired whether or not Mr. Mackey was aware of the many meet- ings of the Planning Commission at which considerable time had been spent on the Santa Ana Canyon Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. ~'; ti~ Mr. Mackey replied that they had no knowledge prior to receiving this legal _ ~ notice. ~~' '~~ Chairman Herbst then noted t:hat man ~ ~ y public hearings had been held before ; !~, the Planning Commission and City Council, long before the (SC) 2one was r ~]~ adopted. ~ Mr. Mackey tioted that he ,iad just prefaced his remarks by that statement, but ;', I,,~ in reading the purpose of the zone, they would be in accord with it - however, ~ `~ they had one concern, namely, that when the State had acquired approximately 70 acres of their land to bring in the freeway and a frontage road, as well 4 ~ as putting in an ofE-ramp and intersection to vt9ir Canyon Road, they left them ~,~ ~d with two island remnants of approximately 5 acres each, and the unique effect *~r that the (SC) Zone would have if the setbacks of 100 feet were required I afl would leave these parcels with hardly anything to develop; that these islands i ~ a,•~ would be related to freeway uses, such as a service station, however, in the ~ i_ {~ ordinance a service station must be related to an integrated shopping center, i and he could not see how that weuld be possible since no one would contemplate ~: placing a shopping center in that small area. ' s' ,t, ; Chairman Herbst noted that the Commission and Council recognized that there a; would be problem parcels, but an ordinance could not be written for each ~ situation - therefore, he would have at his disposal the variance procedure i - to prove hardship when they were ready to pursue development of their property, .~; and the Commission would be glad to consider their request. Furthermore, he n ~ recr~qnized that the State did create many problem parcels which the cities then ,y inherited. ` Mr. Mackey then asked for clarification of whether the Commission stated there would be a possibility of obtaining a variance iE they decided to devei.op. '~ Chairman Herbst noted that it would depend upon the circumstances and h~uw City ~~ services could be provided to this parcel. ;, Commissioner Allred noted that the (SC) Zone was for the protection of people x: rather than to harm them. ~4:'.~~'~.:..'..,' , M,, ~; Commissioner Kaywood noted that Mr. Mackey had stated that the State had '' acquire:d 70 aores - did the State take this outright, or had they paid for - this acreage. Mr. Mackey replied that they had paid for the acreage but had left these 't islands, not considering them as special damaged parcels since they felt these would be islands that could be used for :uture development. *:' '' .~~ee : '~ i ~ ~y„ ~.+.iri+ie. _:t. ..vL : . . ~f . p_ .. ~ ~ ~. - . ~ ~ ~.c _ ?w', -~`4~ ~ .. , ~ ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ' ~ . _a _ _ . .. . . `\ , . . L _ . . ,. _ ; , -- -- , ~ ~ l. ,~ ., , - ~ ~ ~ .. ~ , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COM1':ISSION, ,7une 28, 1971 71-441 RECLASSIFICATION - Mrs. Leo Deterding, 21102 Santa Ana Canyon Road, appeared N~. 70-71-62 before the Commission and stated she had lived in this , itECLASS2FICATION area on their ranch home which was right in the way of ~ NO. 70-71-63 the Overlay 2one and inquired whether or not the City had (Continued) taken a vote of the property owners who owned the land and who would be affected by the zone, or did the demagogues ' • determine this. Mr. C. G. Starling, 20422 Santa Ana Canyon Road, appeared before the Commission : and indicated where his property was located and stated he eventually hoped to :~;~_~ - realize commercial uses on his property - witn the heavy traffic on the road _~ tying in with the freeway, it would not be desirable as an estate; therefore, ~" he was desirous of develo 3n his ,~ P 4 property for commercial uses. j Mr. L. J. Mittendorf, 4311 East Addington Street, appeared before the Commission ? and stated he had resided in the Santa Ana Canyon area for six years, havinq :,' moved there for the beauty of the canyon and wished to go on record as being in complete agreement with the Commission and their proposal, and he hoped that ~ they would vote favorably for it. ~ 1 Mr. Roger Howell, with Rutan & Tucker, 401 C3vic Center Drive :Vest, Santa Ana, appeared before the Commission and noted that he represented a number of land ~ owners; that he had not intended to speak at this time since he was more con- cerned with Reclassification No. 70-71-63; however, since most of the people ~ a~~ outside of the city had presented their arguments, he, therefore, would also ~ i~: present his, and then stated that basically the objective of what the City was ~ attempting to accomplish was to have the owners' support in this broad philo- •+ sophy; that he represented the Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Company, the Yorba '~i Land Company, and the Kraemer property, and his concern was one of whether ' or not there was a constitutionality involved b i of the zone, and he was not too sure that this couldpbeidonehbs implementation r a selected area, making it a scenic area which could not be appliedctogany on ~ ~'~ other portion of the city. Therefore, this was a real concern of most af the ~ ,.~ owners and the community developers would be sympathetic to making substantial ~ commitments to the City for this kind of green-belt treatment with the under- ~ standing in the past there would be some trade off so that tnere would be no # loss without some benefit - otherwise, the City would have to pay for all the ~ ,•j acreage for these green belts; that the property owners might consider being ~ ~~ compensated for land uses that would offset this, and the property under ~ ' ~ consideration was that property all the way to the Green River Golf Course ~ ~,_,,;ti since they ultimately would become part of the City of Anaheim and would be ;~ giving all this area the green-belt treatment for the frontage of their property.' •'~ Deputy City Attorney Fra~k Lowry advised Mr. Howell that he would be glad to ~~ send a copy of the repoz„ which City Attorney Joe Geisler had prepared relative ~- to the legality of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. ~ Mr. Slaughter noted that the (SC) 2one as originally proposed had met with the ~ City Attorney's objections; therefore, many of these objections were made part ~ of the City Subdivision Ordinance, such as the setbacks, landscaping, lot ~: depths, etc., therefore, they would apply throughout the city now. Mrs. Goldie Montgomery, 4800 Crescent Drive, appeared before the Commission and asked for a clarification, inquiring whether or not they would be required to ~ dedicate the 100-foot setback along their property. i '\I Chairman Herbst noted that the intent of the ordinance was to require the setback; however, no dedication was required, and the 100-foot setbac:; ~ould be reduced if berms and screenings were provided. ^` Mr. Slaughter noted that the (SC) Zone setbacks varied with the underl 4~~, zone, which rnight be approved at a later date, and under the R-1 Zone,yall single-family development was oriyinally required to have a 75-foot setback from Santa Ana Canyon Road. However, this was amended to require a lot depth of 150 feet, but a 50-foot building setback would be required, a~d said set- ~ , back could be used for recreaticn or lawn purposes, but in the ..ammercial ~ area, a different setback was required. , Associate Planner pon McDaniel noted that the (SC) Zone would be applied withir, ~~ the boundaiies of the codes and would not substantially affect ex3.sting homes; ~' therefore, Mrs. Montqomery's property would not be affected, nor would addi- V tional setbacks be required until such time as she desired to redevelop her '~~ ~ i i° 3 ~ i.. ' ~ . . .. _..,_. . .. . .. .. .._ . . - ~ . .,. . . -- _ c. _:.,4:~~ ` „ i~ . . . , . ~. . . _ _ . . _ ~ ~ _ . . . ~. ~ ` ' _a I _ --- , 1. `~ ~J ~ ( ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSICN, June 28, 1°?1 71-442 RECLASSIFICATSON - property for a more intense use than presently existed NO. 70-71-62 when the (SC) Zone was established. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70-71-63 Mrs. Montgomery stated that her property extended all the (Continued) way to Santa Ana Canyon Road, and since they could not grow oranges along Santa Ana Canyon Road, they wanted to develop the front part for commercial purposes at some futvre date. Mr. McDaniel noted that the (SC) Zone was also written for the commercial zones; however, as it pertained to Mrs. Montgomery's property, there might be a problem because of the access points, since the State had purchased these access rights some time ago. Chairman Herbst noted that as to commercial value of every parcel of property along Santa Ana Canyon Road, it was totally impossible to expect all o£ these properties to be zoned commercially since the General Plan had already been established, designating given ar.eas for commercial uses. Th:se designated areas coincided with the eleven access points along Santa Ana Canyon Road, and if commercial uses were permitted to develop, permitting additional access to Santa Ana Canyon Road, .his would create quite a traffic problem and cnnsider- able danger, and that he would suggest Mrs. Montgomery review her property with staff to determine what type of development she could place on their property at such time as she planned to develop and what contingencies and what conditions which would be required and were beyond the control of the Planning Commission. Mr. Slaughter noted that approval of any property with the (SC) Zone would not detract from any type of zone for the property - each request would have to be analyzed and determined on its own merit. Chairman Herbst noted that one of the things which people kept discussing was the fact that the City was taking away some of their pro~.erty. The only thing the City was proposing was how the property could be developed, and the City was asking for a better living environment throughout the city, particularly adjacent to the city's boundaries, and when the freeways were cut throuqh, they left many single-family homes adjacent to them, with owners later asking for commercial uses, therefore, this was the reason for requiring special setbacks so that people adjacent to heavily-traveled streets would not request commercial uses for their homes, and the City was attempting not to make the same mistake again as they had in the past. It was hoped that the (SC) Zone woLld accomplish this since the maiiner in which areas were deveioped were for th~ benefit of not only the individual property owner but the community as a whole, thereby providing for a better environment. Mr. Francis Horvath, realtor, 3410 West Balboa, Newport Beach, representing Mr. Wiss, owner of the Santa Ana Canyon Cafe and adjacent service station, noted that for five years they had attempted to obtain C-1 zoning on the property and had finally obtained it, and then inquired in what way would the proposed (SC) Zone affect their existing zoning. Chairman Herbst noted that there would be no effect on any property in the County, but when the property was annexed into the city and was proposed for more intense development, then it would have to be developed in accordance with the standards set forth. Mr. Yiorvath noted that considerable discussion had been held regarding a 100-foot setback, and inquired whether or not this would be a requirement since this would take away the entire parcel. The Commission advised Mr. Horvath that nothing would be done with the parcel until such time as redevelopment of the property was considered. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Cc~mmissioner Allred noted that for a point of discussion from comments made by people stating they wanted to develop for comme~cial uses along Santa Ana Canyon Road, since there were specific areas designated for commercial uses on the General Plan and the access points permitted to Santa Ana Canyon Road were somewhat limited, this would also limit the commercial uses for their ~~' . . ... . ~--- . . ~~ _ . . . . . . ~I..~r'n~a~.w ~ • ~ . . ~ . ~ _ ~ . ^~ ' - ~ ~; I- 1 ~:~ ~ ~ _,~ I MINUTE9, CxTX,~'LANNING COMMISSION, June 28, 1971 71-443 RECLASSIFICATION - properties - generally these areas would be where a four- NO. 70-71-62 way intersection occurred. However, in his own mind, if ~ , RECLASSIFICATION the City permitted comme~-•,_,~1 uses on each piece of property "~~'~ NO. 70-71-63 then the area would look like Laguna Canyon Road had (Continued) developed, and this was not the desired effect the City of Anaheim wanted. Commissioner Rowland noted that the Commission should weigh this proposal very carefully for the benefit of all the property owners in the area, and since Mr. Mackey had stated he hadn't had time enoug: to evaluate this on the property ~'.,^ -;§ he represented, particularly since it was 400 acres, and since Mr. Howell ; represented a significant number of holdings in the canyon, he was desirous of ~f ~~ having 6~eryone become very familiar with this zon~ and to take whatever time it would take before applying it, although, personally, he would like to see the zone applied to these properties as soon as ~ - people did need possible. However, if these additional time to evaluate it, he would consider a continuance on this to give them further time for their remarks, or it could be acted on tonight. ,;.'a '.; ;, ; ~. r ~:: ,\;; ~'^ ' : w' `j * .~e Commissioner Kaywood not.+.d that the residents in the area had been notified many times over the pa;± year regarding the (SC) Zone, both before the Planning Commission and City Council, and every time a public hearing was held, someone would state that this was the first time they had heard about it; therefore, she felt a line nad to be drawn somewhere. Commissioner Allred noted that no matter what would happen or what was done, someone would be hurt, and as far as he was concerned, a good cross-section had been heard. Mr. Deterding, speakinq from the audience, noted that the City could be doing a public service by taking the names of the property owners from the Tax Assessors' office and submitting a questionnaire as to what the residents and property owners in this area thought of the proposal. since only a few of the residents took the time to come down to express their feelings, while others felt that it would do no qood to be present at the hearings, and if the Commission really wanted to know what the people in this area thought, this question and answer proposal would be more enlightening, however, he still wanted it known that he was against this proposal, although he might be in the minority. Chairman Herbst noted that the Commission had been processing petitions and zones through governmental procedures which ~sd been going on for many years, and for many months this had been considered and advertised in accordance with State law, therefore, he could see no reason for changing the procedure to suit any one individual. However, they were nct trying to deny the people the right to say something since the Commission had heard from many people in the area, and the (SC) Zone was adopted and was a law, but in oi:der to apply it to individual properties, a public hearing must be held. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson reviewed the purposes and intent of the (SC) Zone and the manner in which it could be implemented, and then noted that at the public hearing before the City Council, petitions signed by 900 persons in the canyon indicated they were in favor of it, while 19 persons indicated their opposition. Commissioner Kaywoad noted that the Peralta Hills and Nohl Ranch property owners were also in favor of the (SC) Zone. Mr. Thompson then noted that from staff's stanc~oint, if the Commission was desirous of recommending approval of these reclassification petitions to the City Council and if any property owner was interested in knowing how it would affect his property, staff would be glad to set up meetings with them to indicate how this would afiect their propprty since it would be difficult to explain, because of the varying zones already escablished on some of these properties, what effect would result from the (SC) Zone. This encompassed setbacks, hillside grading, types of development, and uses that were considered undesirable. Commissioner Rowland aoted that if the Commission took action on this, the City Council would consider this at a public hearing approximately a month froc~t the Commission action, and during that time, anyone hsving any further questions could avail themselves of staff's answers and then present a more informed opinion before the City Council. _ `~ i i ~ :.F ' r, ! , ._a . - .l _ . ; j ~I ~ ; ~-~~ ~ CJ MINUTES~ CxTX PLANNING COMMISSION, June 28, 1971 71-444 RECI,ASSIrICATION - Mr. Slaughter noted that the City Clerk would advertise N0. 70-71-62 these petitions in the same manner and the same mailing RECLASSIFICATION list would receive the legal notice from the City regard- NO. 70-71-63 ing the City Council's public hearing. (Continued) Mr. Thompson further reiterated that the setbacks would . not take property away from the property owners, and where commercial uses were approved and setbacks required, these setbacks could be used for parking, together with landscaping, while in the residential uses the rear yards could be used for parking, recreation, etc., and since the setbacks ,-_.::,~ were a requirement of all the zones, there was no intent of eliminating use of _ _ the property. ;~ ' Mr. John Outhuyse, 21222 Santa Ana Canyon Road, noted for the Commission that t;~ he had two homes facing on Santa Ana Ca.nyon Road and inquired who would benefit '0 ;7 by this proposal. _ i r' Mr. Slaughter noted that Laguna Canyon Road presented an example - if anyone had seen this area, Ehey would note that th~ property had experienced a loss in value and was deteriorating because of Y.he poor treatment of the area where _~ undesirable uses, large unattractive signs, etc., were permitted to develop, and if property controls had been exercised at the time development occurred, this property would have considerably more value than it presently had, and _ this was the purpose of having land planning for the canyon so that the value of the land would increase rather than decrease. - Mr. Outhuyse then noted that it was his opinion the people who would gain more from viewing the proposed scenic corridor should help pay for the beautification of the area. ;~ :,,~ - C;~airman Herb~t noted that as Planning Commissioners and City Councilmen they were preparing the way for property owners in the canyon to develop their _~ prcperty ;n a manner more desirable, making a better livina environment, which wouid also increase the value of the property, and if Mr. Outhuyse wanted to ~ievelop his pxoperty in the future, ha could present his petition to the ' Commission and Co4ncil, indicating any hardship that might occur since the ~ zone was not writt~n for each indivi3ual parcel, but was an overall plan of k~ development for the canyon. =~ Mr. Outhuyse ;,hen stated he, too, would sign the petition in favor if his ' ~ property were not affected by the proposed zone. ~ i~ Chairman Herbst then reviewed the requirements of the M-1 Zone in which ' ~,. ' specific bu±Tding setbacks and landscaping were required, noting that the t majoritx of the city's indus±rial area was developed with industrial parks j ~ `~ which had become highly desirable because of their appearance and since the ' !' ;~;' , M-1 2one was so effective, this was what was intended by the (SC) Zone. , _`! '; Several of the audience in response to a question by Commissioner Allred , stated they wanted the area to remain as it was, i ~ ~_j Mr. Thompson stated that it would not be necessar for the Y property owners to ~ plant bushes or anything until they wanted to develop their property for a more intense use; that if they intended to ramain in their homes, it would ' ` remain as it was; that a normal requirement by the City when development ~„ ~ occurred adjacent to a road was the installation of curbs and gutters and ' - ' sidewalks - however, in the Santa Ana Canyon, rather than having this the ; ~ , City was proposing landscaping instead, and the overall expense of developing h ; c t e property would be c:ansiderably less by said landscaping than if the curb, tt ? ;. Y' `'-'~ gu er, and sidewalks were required; and that this landscaping, in the long - run, along Santa Ana Canyon Road would provide a buffer between the roadway ~:;< ~ and the people living S.n the area if the landsca in were P' g provided in the ; manner code required; and that the area now was a very nice drive, however 4. , it wasn't that way a short time ago, and this was only because of the City's requirements for the area. ~'j Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-132 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassifica- ? tion tdo. 70-71-62 be approved, establishing the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone . - ~~ on those properties within tne City of Anaheim located between * he AT&SF ; ~ .. Railroad right-of-way on the north, a line running one-half mi] e south of ;.~e ; . Santa Ana Canyon Road on the soezth, the Newport-Riverside Freeway on the west s , and the city boundary on the east. (See Resolution Book) ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~_ t= ~: ,~ . . . ~ e _.. ~ ~~ ~ : _. ., ~ _ ~ ~ ` '~ i _ ___ ~ _ ' ~ _ ~~ : , ~ ~ _. '~,.,~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 28, 1971 71-445 RECLASSIFICAT20N - On roll call ttie ~oz~going resolution was passed by the N~. :0-71-62 following vote: ` ltECLASSIFICATION -~` h~J. 70-71-63 7.~YES : COMMISSIONERS : Allred, Gauer, Hecnst, Y.a,ywaod., (Continued) Rowlawd, Seymour. ,' `?;~ ~:: ' N~ES : COMMISSIONERS : None . ~ ASSF:,T: COMMISSIONER.S: Farana. ; 1 r ~ Commissir~ner Alired offerei~ Resolution No. PC71-133 ,snd moved for its pass~igz. and adopt.ion to recommend to th_ City Council approval of Petition for 7»;~:a~ = Reclassific~tion No. 70-7.1-63, subject ~o anaexation of the propeirty to the ?;47~ City of Ar;aheim, to e~`ahlish the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone fox• those areas ~~~.` within the County of ;range ZAaatezi between the AT&SF Railroad r47,;t-of-~•,;a•y on the north, the Orange C~~un~ty line on the east, a line paral?.e7. :~ith ared st '' one-half mile .~outh of s,~ntj ,Ana C~nyon Road on the south, and tlie i.ntersE:ction ~y ., ~; of the Tlewport and Ri~•rsx•siae~ Freeways on the wes t. (See Reso7.utian Book) ;~ j~ On rc:.'i aall the foregoim? reso:iution was passed by the followinc~ vocF•: ~'~'`~ i'xESc COMMI~S~ONERSc A7.lrad, G~uer, Herbst, KayHOCd., Rowland, ~eymour. {n( •~ ti:sES: COMMSSSIGNERS: iQone. _+: '. `' ' F~BSENT: COMMISSI•~NERS: Farano. ~ A :t~~ '~j'~ ~ f~ 3~. ADJOUkh~d~NT - There being no further business to discuss, Comr,~issioner C! 111red offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. ~ Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION "` CARRIED. ~~ :4j . ! I~Z tL 4~ The meetin.g adjo~:rned at 10;30 P.M. ftespeci:fully submitted, I ~ ~.c^r~ , ~' ~~~z,~ ANN KREBS, SFCretary Ana'tieim ~ity Plann.ing Commission n ;~. .;:~ ;j ,, . ~ `.~~';f; ~. ~ ~_~ f, .~ ,1 , ~ ~ ~ : • - • ~``-~~''`~~, 9~°-_1~, E~ _.ti~°"~, ;~?" _ - . , ' , ~ ~ .. ' . . ~ . . , ~ ~ . . . ~' .. . ~ .,o ,: ~ ~~. ... . .,~.. ~. ,~.,~.~.. . . . _ . _ " _ _.._~-./ - r..... . _~_~~_~__ ~_ .. . _~a..._.r. A _