The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1971/11/01,t ~ ~ _ ~ . ~ :~ ~ ~- --•--- -_..-._ "_' _. ,. -~_ ~ ~ . ~ . ;. ~ T --_,_ ~ , .. . ~~ . `~ City Hall Anah•aim, California Nove:~ber 1, 1971 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~ ,~ REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was MEETING called to order by Chairman pro tem Seymour at 2:00 P.I4., a quorum being present. :/ }::... ~' ' . iri; '; ~~. j'; Z' . PRESENT - CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: Seymour. - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. ABSENT - COMMISSIODiERS: Farano. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry Office Engir.eer: Jay Titus Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Don McDaniel Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF. - Commissioner Rowland led in the Pledge of Alle ALLEGIANCE Flag. giance to the APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to approve the minutes THE MINUTES of the October 18, 1971, meeting, seconded by Commissioner Allred, and MOTION CARRIED, subject to the following corrections: Pg. 71-642, para. 7, line 3, should be "Seymour". Pg. 71-659, para. 7, li~ies 3, 4, and 5, should read: "of the facility to the Church's credit union, which cbuld be moved out i£ the headquarters needs the space." RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. DONALD R. AND BEV'~RI,Y A. TAYLOR, NO. 71-72-6 6161 Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of three lots and having a frontage of approximately 110 feet on the east side of Western Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 275 feet and being located approximately 550 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road, and further described as 850 South Western Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, ~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. ~ Subject petition was continued from the meeting of ,7uly 26, 1971, to allow I time for the petitioner to submit development plans. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel advised the Commission that the petitioner had submitted a letter requesting an additional four weeks' ' continuance in order to allow time to complete plans for consideration. ' Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-6 to the meeting of November 29, 1971, to allow time for the petitioner to submit completed development plans. I' Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CLAUDE A. SHERWOOD, 8~6 South NO. 71-72-16 Robertson, Los Angeles, California, Owner; LeRoy Rose, 1440 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel ot land consisting of approximately 2.34 acres at the northwest corner of Riverdale and Lakeview Avenues, with approximate frontages of 296 feet on Riverdale Avenue and 310 feet on Lakeview Avenue be reclassiFied from the R-A(SC), AGRICULTURAL (SCENIC CORRIDOR), ZONE to the C-1(SC), GENERAL COMMERCIAL (SCENIC CORRIDOR), 20NE. 71-668 r's'.."".'FYn::o!¢": ....: . . ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ .. - ~ . .. ,. ~ ~ . ~ ~ - ~ ~ ' ~ _-r:'r+~yi~,~~~~w.~l~;% ~.~'C.. Y ~ ^..s~~.aa-r ~.:.....u-,,,,.,.. , ~ . . ( . . . ..~i . . .... . ! .I . . . . . .. , ~i ~ . ~ . , . . . °i I _ . . - . - I. ~ - . . . . . ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOiQ, November 1, 1971 71-669 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-16 (Continued) Subject petition was continued from the meetings of September 20 and October 18, 1971, in order that staff could present additional information regarding the need for commercial uses at this lo'cation, and for a full Commission to be present. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous consideration by the Planning Commission of subject petition, and.the reason why it had been continued, namely, that at the October 18 meeting, the vote was a tie, and the Commission determined that the adjacent property owners who had attended the September 20 hearing should be notified again that the hearing was re- opened. Mr. McDaniel then reviewed the evaluation as set forth in the Report to the Commission, with a further comment that on October 18, the petitioner had indicated it was his intent ta develop an integrated shopping center. Mr. LeRoy Rose, agent ann architect for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, and in response to Chairman pro tem Seymour's request that comment~ be held to a minimum unless new information was being presented, reviewed the location of the residents in opposition on a map, together with the area presently bei.ng developed with single-family homes and noted that zoning was designed to prevent strip zoning and cluster-type commercial so that there would be no conflict with residential uses; that the hos~pital was prasently under construction, which would surround the proposed commercial development; that he had checked with the principal of the school, who had advised him that none of the students on the east 5ide of Lakeview Avenue attended the school located 2,000 feet west of the pzoposed commercial site, and these children were bussed to another school - therefore, the claim that children would be walking in front of subject property to school was iacorrect; that in the petition of opposition that was circulated, there were incorrect ~ statements made, one being that the service station would be a 24-hour-a-day ~ operation, and they would stipulate to hours of operation from 6:00 A.M. to ~ 10:00 P.M.; that a further statement in the petition indicated there would be a grocery store similar to a 7-11 Market, however, they would stipulate ~ to a gourmet-type food and liquor store; that they would further stipulate there would be no five and ten cent store or self~service laundry; that they ~ would further stipulate to a snack-type restaurant similar to "Cocos"; and ~ that the ceater would be a"town and cc.~untry'~ type ~imilar to the one located ~ across the street from Fashion Square in Orange A~n and would be in no way ~ similar to the centar located at Jefferson Street and the Riverside Freeway, Mr. Rose then read a portion of a letter from Mr. Jacobs of the Santa Ana ~ Canyon Improvement Association and stated that it appeared these statements ' were somewhat contradictory, in one instance stating they di.d not want a, ' shopping center and then later stating the types of uses that would be acceptable to them. ' Mr. Rose further noted that the service station was at an intersection of two arterials as required by Code, with the traffic being able to leave the Riverside Freeway to Lakeview Avenue and traverse northerly to Yorba Linda, connecting with Imperial Highway; that the Report to the Commission indicated this facility would enhance the area, however, the residents of the area were not questioning any commercial development there, but the types of uses; that if they were able to rent offices, they would also stipulate to that; and that the center would be very attractively landscapcd. Mr. Rose, in response to Commission questioning, stated t!- since he repre- sented two clients individually, if. the Commission desire o see the traffic flow provided within the area and if Code would per.rt•i,t it, ..e would prefer not providing a wall since this str;:acure would be architecturally compatible with the hospital, ~ Mr. Bob McQueen, 4831 McKinnon Drive, appeared before the Commission, repre- senting a number of persans present in the Council Chamber, all in opposition, and stated that the residents of the area were opposed to the proposed commercial development; that reference was made to the number of people who had not signed the petition but who lived in this area, however, when this ~:-: ~.. a ` ~ _w ~ i : , ~ ~: . _~------ --~--- _ -- ~ _ ~ ~~/ ~ • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 1, 1971 71-670 RECLASSI:ICATION NO. 71-72-16 (Continued) request was first considered approxi;nately two months ago, very few people were notified, but since the first public hearing, they had attempted to aontact more people, and then reviewed a ma those persons in opposition and those in favorDanddnotedhthatlthosedlotslnow ~ being developed with single-familg homes were not considered in their total count; and that the majority of the residents of the area were opposed to the service station, .. Mr. McQueen then elaborated on the statement made regarding children from the r' east side of Lakeview Avenue attending the school, notin P ;;: •~;'' oint out that there had been a ver~ 5 he would like to Riverdale, with vehicles traveling athspeedsuupStou501anda60LmileseW and ;~:~ ' when the vehicles approached the freeway; that children Per hour traffic light which controlled traffic on the off-ramp ofathe~freewaythbut Y~ there still was no contxol for apprcaching on-ramp traffic; that children ~ were required by law to use the crosswalk and light, and children had been tzai:ied, however, it was very difficult to maintain a complete watch over the children since children naturally would take the shortest route rather ~ 1 tHan going to a crosswal}; or traffic light; that if the Planning Commission considered subject petition favorably, one of the conditions of approval should be installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Lakeview and Riverdale Avenues; that the agent for the petitioner had stipulated to many uses that would not be established o:i the premises, but at no time was withdrawal of the service station mentioned, and the petition of apposition indicated unalterable o ' and that if representativeslor~operatorseofathespropo~ed servicecstationon; : were in the audience, he wished to advise them that there would be very little, ~! if any, business from the residents of the area at the cervice station. ,} Furthermore, existing service stations in this general area were having a ,~ difficult time operating their stations without extensive loss, and the ~ ;~ addition of another service station would mean either this service station ~1 or one of the other service stations would suffer from loss of business, ~ which would mean a closed service station, something the City of Anaheim did ~ :i not need more of, In addition, all signers of the petition had indicated they would boycott a commercial facility at this intersection; that the ' -~ shopping center nearby was also having a difEicult time in being successful; ~ :? and that of the 300 homes within one of the ci indicated they were in favor of the proposal; andethat thoseafamilieslnotad ~ 'I at home or where homes were empty were not considered in the overall total ~1 of 300 homes, i .:g :` Mr. McQueen, in response to Commission questionin `~''.~t contacted people to tl.e west of the service station,sfartherhweste toddeter- _ mine their reaction to this proposal; that the distance Prom subject property to the intersection of Tustin and Riverdale Avenues was approximately one and one-quarter miles; and that prior to the installation of a four-way stop sign at that intersection, it, too, was a very hazardous corner. Mrs. Mabel Travis, 155 Maude Lane, appeared before the Commission in opposi- tion, stating she had submitted a letter to Chairman Farano, and then pra~eeded to read said letter, stating she represented Celestial Homes in the Santa Ana Canyon; that she had contacted owners of 160 homes in the area, and 150 had signed a petition of opposition; that it was true they lived approximately oae and one-half miles from subject property, but~since there was to be a ' laxger shopping center at Imperial Highway and Santa Atta Canyon Road, it ~~ would contain a supermarket, service station, bank, and many other stores, as well as a theater, there appeared to be no need for another, and this, then, would mean more empty buildings standing idle, creating more problems to the F neighborhood, the police, and other City departments; that they were awy.re the General Plan indicated a convenience sho~oing center in this generai area, but when the General Plan was originally drz~i"jec9, there were no homes there, and the area had changed since it was adopted; that small stores charged higher prices than supermarkets, and since the residents of this area were working people, it was logical they would be seeking markets with bargains; j that they were used to traveling a distance for their supx~.lies anyway; and 1 that they did no*_ want or need the propused ~4opping cent•.~.~ because they wanted to maintain a residential appearance ~~r this area. a ~ .~ 3 ~ ~ , ---- . . ... • ,~ _ , z °:t:, ~~ .. . ~ _. .. . .-. ~ilr.__~..~... ., .. , ' ~ M1 ~ t i + ,.~' ~ ~t ~ '~ ' ~'.•~~1~~ ~wm~w'°rR- -~ ~ - +s~a ~s~ s~.~r -~1M __ ~ ~ ~ . .. ~.x.. ;.=::i. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON, November 1, 1971 71-671 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-16 (Coni:inued) Mr. Rose, in rebuttal, noted that it would appear that the residents of the area h d 'i a no concern for the owner of subject propPrty, which should also be consider d i ~ e s nce he had the right to go broke i~ he felt like it; that the petitioner wanted to develop his ro t p per v, and he could see no other way than a small convenience shopping center ~ecause of the hospital en compassing the property on two sides; that subject property was not desirable for residential use th t ; a good planning and the facts presented by staff expressed the feeling that the proposed ~ _ :' use would be a logical one; that reference m:.de to a traffic signal would have no bearin on th ~,.~ g e petitioner since the City would install a traffic signal if the traffic became t b ' oo un earable and presented a problem; that the opponents could obtain 700 signatures f : ~ rom the entire east Anaheim area, however, the Commission must lock at the ri hts f h :; g o t e property owner; and that the proposed center would not be unde ' sirable i ~~ n appearance such as others in the city, but would be a well-designed archite t , c urally compatible facility. r ~ t?~s ' ~i ';~2" , f~ ~~ *, .+~t << ~ 9. Mr. C. A., (BUSter) Sherwood, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and •noted that he had recently learned that many of these property owners signing the petition of opposition were inaccurately informed as to what was proposed oit subject pr~perty and were then frightened as to the undesirable uses; however, he wished to assure the Commission that this would be a very lovely plaza and would blend in with the hospital facility. However, he could understand *_he feelings of the rPSidents that their properties would deteriorate. • THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer expressed concern that approval of a~ervice station at this .intersection would establish a precedent for requests for service stations at the other three corners of this infersection. Chairman pro tem Seymour stated that subject property was a desirable corner 's'or a convenience commprcial center, while the other three corners could still be retained for residential use. Commissioner Herbst noted that one of the key points to consider was to review subject property as to what it was best suited for_; the property could be developed for C-0 or C-1 uses since it was not suitable for residential purposes; that signatures in opposition for one and one-half miles from subject property should have little beariag, and he did not wa•:;:: to have pressure applied on the Commission as to what should be allowed or developed on the property; that the property could not be developed for residential user>; and that the proposed facility would not be a detriment to the area. Furthermora, those signing the petition in opposition had a right to boycott the business in this center since they indicated they did not want the center, but they should not tell the Commission what uses should be permitted. Commissioner Gauer noted ihat in the past where four service stations were located at a busy intersection, they did not appear to be successful, and there was no question that Anahzim k:ad a surplus of service stations, and, thus, to permit establishment of another service station would invite another boarded-up station, or if this one succeeded, then one in the area would fail; and that it was not good planning to permit another service station, particu- larly in this area. Commissioner Herbst observed that the nearest service station was one and one-half miles away, and this request was not similar to having four service stations at an intersection; that the employees of the hospital could use this facility and would suppart it, but, oE couzse, could not support four service stations; and that in the past he had been opposed to too many servzce sta~i tis. Commissioner Gauer inquired whether the service bays for the proposed station we~re directed inward, away from the street; whereupon Commissioner Herbst noted that the bays were not oriented toward the street. Commissioner Allred inquired whe*_her or nct awners of the other three corners could establish service stations on their property if subject petition were approved, .~., ~ :. S ~~ -W+...t. . ~ ,. ~ ~( wiw,' . . ' r i , , . . . : i ; ~ ~ (_) MINUTES, CITY PLANNT_NG COMMISSION, November 1, 1971 71-672 RECLASSIFICATIUN NO. 71-72-16 (Continued) 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone would not permit it as a matter of right; however, this did not preclude a property owner requesting zoning and waiving of the ordinance. Commissioner Kaywood observed that it was very obvious that the residents of the area did not want the proposed facility at this intersection, even though it was the best corner for it. Chairman pro tem Seymour observed that Commissioner Herbst and the agent for the petitioner had made very valid~~points that the City must recognize that the property owner should be permitted to de~relop his property to the highest and best use, however, if this were only a farming area, then there would be no need for a Planning Commissior: - the Commission, though, must decide what was in the best interests of the community. A good plan also meant planning with people; that the Commission could not automate planning so that they overlooke3 the changing environment; that the residents in the area - Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association - and othe: homeowners groups were not fear-inspired groups - if anything, they were well-informed, intelligent thinking residents that understood development, and this was borne out by the number of people presenting their bodies when anything was proposed for devel- opment in the canyon; that the statement by Commissioner Herbst regafding people residing one and a half miles away should not affect the Commi.ssion's thinking miqht be considered, but if the Commission considered only those people this facility would primar~ly serve and could be affected, this would still be considerable; then the question was presented, what could be done with this property, and the answer to t.*.at would be, it could be used in conju:ction with the hospital for additional offices and more parking, but if the Commis- sion just automated in the guise of "qood planning", then the Commission would be oblivious to the residents in the area and the type of development they wanted in the area. Commissioner Rowland noted that ne did not share the view that people living one and a half miles a~3~id not i~ave a voice in the ma•tter since the City Council were elected o~.~r~r', and anyone in the community who paid taxes for the various uses were entitled to vote, therefore, the people were having a vslid voice in the matter; that he would not agree th3s should be denied, how~avei, he did not feel full value and weight as to the impact the hospital would have, and the implications inherent in a hospital operation and cost in operating the hospital affecting this area. Commissioner Rowland further noted that Coma:ssioner Herbst mentioned there would ba some support for thi~ facility in the hospital, and he would imagine it would be a totally-support 9 facility by the employees of the hospital as the hospital reached maturity - this could be considered an ancillary service providing a shopping facility for secretaries during their lunch hours, particularly since it was adjacent to the hospital, and since this was a pre- dominantly residential area, this commercial center would relieve, iii part, the hospital cost to the citizens. of the community since this was a 24-hour- a-day operation, and if they had to serve meals to their employees, this would increase costs. In addition, if this commercial center was not approved wi.::h the many normally-needed services requiring employees and relatives visiting patients to leave the hospital for other areas to find a restaurant and small service shops for their immediate needs, the impact of this traffic onto the residential area would be considerable. Thus, it would be beneficial to the entire residential area, and it would provide more assets to the area resid- ing there than negative attributes. Commissioner Allred, in re-analyzing the proposal, noted that he was not totally in disagreement with the C-1 request, but he was in total disagreement with establishing a service station at this intersection since he felt the service shops could be utilized by the haspital employees alone even though th~ resi- dents of the area had stated they would boycott both the shopping center and ' the service station, another service station boarded up was not an asset to the city, even though this was located at the freeway off-ramp. _ . R~; ~ • _' . ~Y : ~ ~ , ' ' . . ' . .' ~ \ _ , . -..,- , .~~., _.I~ ~ , ~ , ~ ~ s~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 1, 1971 71-673 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-16 (Continued) {~ }~ - ," ,~ , ~'".:. s; ~. <; _r: ; ;~ ;~. ~', ; .kt . : Chairman pro tem Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-208 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-16 be disapproved on the basis that although the General Plan projected a neighborhood shopping center at this intersection, it indicated that the decision of whether or not to zone a particular site for commercial purposes restPd upon the facts bearing on that particular site; that the residents in the area had signed a petition indicating that they not only opposed the zoning, but that they would boycott any commercial facili- ties approved for subject property; that approval of subject petition would be contrary to the desires of the residents in the area, and good planninq should also take into consideration the wishes and desires of residents of an area; that residents in this general area had t~ken a keen interest in what- ever was developed in the canyon area, which was evidenced by very active participatzon in any zoning action considered for this area; and that the proposed reclassification of subject property was not necessary or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followinq vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Rowland. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. Commissioner Herbst left the Council Chamber at 2;SG P.M. AREA DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLAN NO. 107 PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to consider circulation and access for an area on the south side of Bzoadway, east of Loara Street, to the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. SubjecP area develp~~nt ~~lan was continued from the May 17, June 14, August 9, ~ Se tember 20°~^~19~i~'meetings to allow time for the property owners in the study area to submit development plans. RECLASSIFICATIaN - CONTINIIED PUBLIC HEARING. ATLANTIC MOTORS, INC., H. R. NO. 70-71-43 McNeil, President, 325 South Atlantic Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Owner; DONALD F. BUHLER AND M. L. Agents; requesting thatEproperLyBdescribedeas:NeAn~irregularlyasha~edia, of land consistir.g of approximately 3.4 acres, having a frontage of approxil mately 90 feet on the south side of Broadway, having a maximum depth of approximately 644 feet, and beinq lo,:ated approximately 991 feet east of the centerline of Loara Street, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. S~ ect petition was contirbua~~~~ the meetings of April 19, May 17, June 14, ~ug st 9, and September 20,^ 97 ,~o allow time for the preparation of an area development plan that would provide circulation for those properties located south of Broadway between Loara Street and the railzoad tracks and for development plans to be submitted. RECLASSIFY~CATION - PUBLIC HEARING. H_ N. BERGER, 4333 East Live Oak Avenue, N0. 71-72-18 Arcadia, California, and ATLANTIC MOTOR CORP., c/o H. R. McNeil, 1750 Namrio Road, San Marino, California, Owners; WILLIAM S. PHELPS, James K. Schuler & Assoc., luy5 North Main Street, Suite S, Orange, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: An irreguLarly-shaped parcel o£ land consisting of approxi- mately 17.5 acres located at the southeast corner of Loara Street and Sroadway and having approximate frontages of 620 feet on the east side of Loara Street and 1,030 feet on the south side of Broadway be reclassified from thz R-A, AGRICULTis)tAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPT,E-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. Chairman pro tem Seymour noted that since Area Development Plan No. 107 encompassed both properties under Reclassification Nos. 70-71-43 and 71-72-18, aZl three would be considered as one item. . . . . . . .... ~ ,. ~ . . . `~ _ \ y T ~ ~~+owsw+a~w~w~~.i .,:~Yi~ - ~.--. :-;~w.~.,~,,..~ :.. .: ~ ' d C ~l • . {` . ~ I ' lT ' ~ ~ ~ 'I ~ ,' MSNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 1, 1971 71-674 • AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN N0. 107, RECLASSIFICATION NOS. 70-71-43 AND 71-72-18(Con't;~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject ,~ property, uses established in close ~roximity, reason for pre~ious conti.nuance -~ of the area development plan and Reclassification No. 70-71-43, and the "~ ~ conceptual plans presented by the ageut for the petitioner, showing an '~ alternate means of providing circulation; that the Traffic Engineer had indicated the estimated daily volume of 4,200 vehicles would be generated by the dwelling unit density proposed for these parcels, and since the existing Broadway volumes were 15,000 per day and Loara Street were 4,200 vehicles '; per day, on this basis it was his opinion that a colle~tor connecting to ' Loara Street• to accommodate a portion af t!?e generated traffic from the ~ i? '' proposed development was necLssary since exclusive exiting to Broadway only .~ would cause extreme congestion during certain hours, and with the normal growth ~~x. of traffic, it would be most critical to movement on Broadway in the future; ; that Exhibit "A" of Area Development Plan DIO. 107 indicated a local street _ with an ultimate width of 64 feet extending easterly from Loara Street and returning northerly to Broadway, and such a street would provide needQd east- , west and north-south circulation in the area and would provide additional means of access to these properties; that Exhibit "A" also depicted a 54-foot wide 1 street with a 1-foot holding stri.p adjacent to the adjoinin with the additional 10 feet of ;.~ght-of-way being acquired atPsuchrtimelas~ the property to the south was developed - this 54-foot wide street would 1 provide a minimum right-of-way acceptable to the Engineering Department and would allow the developer to recover the cost of developing more than half of the width of the street; that it was conceivable that the location of the streets could be shifted slightly, with the ultimate location being dependent upon which parcel was developed first; that the exhibit did not preclude ; development of one-half of the street on the adjoining properties if agreements ~ + could be reached between the two affected property owners at the time of devel- ~ ~ opment; that a further potential benefit of the proposed street was the possi- ~ ~ bility of providing street extensions to the south in the event the junior ~l high school was not built on that ~ :~ property and the land was developed for other % _~ non-public uses, however, a representative of the school district had advised Y -;~ staff that at the present time there were no plans to develop a school on this 'j property, but the district also had no plans to sell the property either. ~.-I Mr. McDanie2 further noted that with the conceptual plans p.resented, the ;,( Traffic Enqineer had analyzed the proposal and had made specific comments as ~~ set forth in the Report to the Commission, and in summarizing this report, ~ ~ it was indicated that a central access road was required to serve this develop- ~ ;,`~ ment and any possible future development; that the road should be of sufficient 1 width to accommodate the anticipated volumes and shouid serve as a collector i '~ road , providing access to the interior drives only, however, with sufficient ~ ~, width, parallel parking could be permitted, and access to both Loara Street ,. _ and to Broadway should be limited to two points each, with the central access road and cul-de-sac beinq one o£ the accesses, thus eliminating the conflicts that accompany a multiplicity of driveways, and every effort should be directed to provide for directional desires without requiring use of the adjacent intersection. % Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that as an extension to the comments made by Mr. McDaniel, the proposal under Reclassification No. 70-71-43 for _ R-3 zoning encompassed the easterly 3~t acres, while Reclassification No. 71-72-18 encompassEd both the property under Reclassification No. 70-71-43 and ~, the adjacent parcels. ;~ " Mr. William Phelps, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the principal portion of '~is presentation was ` already before the Commission, however, in the evaluati.~n by the staff he `~' would like to discuss this in more detail; that the basics of design for this parcel were considerably more than it would appear with a 17-acre parcel since ~" the location of a small portion presently occupied as a small ranch and farm precluded a number of conditions which a developex or landowner would find a difficult situation; that with planning by staff when they requesi:ed this particular division of property (referring to the area development plan map), ~ since at any given point between the railroad on the east and Loara Street on the west, to require this street would be penalizing the developer of the property far beyond the basic reasoning since when one looked at an R-3 *: ' development, one was looking at a complete entity itself; that the dedication .~t . ---_~!~+~~ ' ~ . ~ ~ 0 _a r j ~ ~ ~ 71-675 MINUTES, CZxY ~LANNING COMMISSION, November 1, 1971 AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 107, RECLASSIFICATION NOS. 70-71-43 AND 71-72~18(Cor't required for both Loara and Broadway to be widened and including the new street would total 3.2 acres of land which would be taken from a developer; that the new street was based on a number of "ifs" when referriny to the possible development of the school property, which were absolute unknowns; that if the school stated they did not plan to sell their property and presently did not plan to develop the school, then the new street proposed would be a com- plete waste of money and land; and that since this was a single development proposal, the developer felt that rather than qive the land for a street and improvements, which would allow everybody and his brother to drive through his development, he would be willing to give his part only, or a half-street. In essence, the half-street would provide all that sta£f or the Traffic Engineer desired from a traffic standpoint of control, but still allowing the property to the south to have access to Loara Street in a reasonable manner. However, the area development plan would r..equire one developer to for nonapublictuser aTherefore,7eitPwas1veryedifficultrtoerty was developed plans at this time, and if the Planning Commission and CityeCouncilvdetermined ~ that the street was an absolute must, he would have nothing to plan because the developer had nothing to build, and this prompted him to come to fhe Commission first to get their thoughts and feelings before presenting any more ~j detailed designing. ~ Mr. Phelps then reviewed the concept plan which was filed, indicating a cul- ~ de-sac (another if); that the Traffic Engineer had assured him it was not necessary to have a dedicated street to accomplish circulation for this property at the intersection, and because they would have a homogeneous development, they were proposing to give part of a street on the southerly edge, and if the property to the south proposed development, then the balance of the street could be required only on that property; that it was highly discriminatory to ask the owner of one parcel to dedicate one complete street; and that the petitioner-developer was proposing a traffic easement to be granted to the City of Anaheim allowing for traffic flow, but the maintenance of this access would be hand'led by the developer, even though used in the exact manner as a dedicated .street except the developer was calling it a traffic flow easement. In othax words, what the petitioner-developer was ' requesting was not another ~ ~ ' Commission on whether this landownereshouldtbe~requiredatof@edicate£3~acres I for a street that may or may not be usQd by the adjacent property to the ~ south when the petitioner-developer could provide the same traffic flow, trash pick-up, etc„ without a fully dedicated street. In addition, they were asking for apPraval of the easement proposal extending from north to south, connecting w?th the cul-de-sac half-street, thereby providing for circulation; and that ~i the sclxool property did not develop or if the school property was developed for other than pub,lic uses, then the additional width of the street could be prova.dcd by ~hat developer. Mr. Phelps, in response to a question by Cemmissioner Gauer, stated that over 1.2 acres would be devoted to a 970-foot long, east-west, 54-foot wide street as set forth in the area development plan, while the proposal would be a 450-foot loag, 32-foot half-street, or about 1/3 of an acre and about 1/5 of an acre for the north-south access easement. Commissioner Gauer was of the o ~ the project via a helicopter; whereuponhMr.pPhelps repliedCthat thegdeveloper was attempting to use the accessways within the project rather than dedicat- ing a public street. Mr. Phelps, in further response to Ccmmission statements, stated that most developers were now maintaining their own streets, a task formerly performed by City facilities. Chairman pro tem Seymour invited Traffic Enginee;: Ed Granzow to comment on the area development plan and the proposal by the developer. Mr. Granzow advised the Commission that his comments as set forth in the Report to the Commission related to the plans presented by Mr. Phelps; that his primary c~ncern was traffic from subject property, and if and when the property to the south of subject property developed, in order to prevent fragmentation ~ ti.. s;c- ` ~cs1w i.~~~ris _ -. s, `5.~~ r { . . ~ _a ._ •. ~ ` ` '" _ ~ ~ ~ - '~.>: ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 1, 1971 71-676 AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 10', RECLASSIFICATTON NOS. 70-71-43 AND 71-72-18(Con' t;; °' ` of the property anu isolati::•3 it, requiring entry to and from individual properties from arterials - this stceet would allow for entry to the property without th e neerl to gain access frc~m an arterial; that the road proposed by the developex• was n t i/' o ex.actly as was desirei, but this road woa2d serve basically th-e needs as indicat d e c~n.the area development plan; t:~,st a road shoul8 be Lor circulaticn and n t ;, as access to and from carports o_ fur on- street parkis~g access - but his basic co ,~ n.;ern was to provide accesc and circulation to both Loara and Broadway. , ~' ~ ~ Commicsioner Gauer inquixea whether N,a~. ~ranzow felt a private street was ~ , acce table as ,. ,. P proposed; whereupon M_ ,:,c:in~ow stated e would not be in ~ ! oPposititi~n to it ~vLe2~c,~u,Q~,~~J~:~~i+~ M,e~~ ~- ~F' i i ~ , , °~!~ C~,mmiss3oner ~towland observea that re?aid?eys of the location or the ac ~, cess- street as proposed, at would not be an ~.de>?. situation under an y circumstances h ~ ~ 1 , ; w ereupor, Mr. Granzos: stated that reloc:~C.io~i would be no problera since this ; ~ was not a c~llector-cg~e street, and an :,ff-•se+. as su~gested by Commissioner Rowl:~r d did r ' ~, . .zo , prese.nt any particular pr~~h7,er.:. ~; ~ Commissioner Rc~aland then noted that there were two single-family residet;tial ~ s::reets stubbing into the school property on the south an3 inquired whether ~ oz not Gilbuck StreQt_ w~,~ld be extended through sai~ property•, giving it ~ ` ' ar.cces to the north. :;c if this were necessary, then perhaps the cul-de-sac should b ~ . ~ e extended farther east so that said street could have access to the cul-de-sac. Whereu on Mr G ~ p . ranzow stated access could be accomplished without extending the street northerly to the ea t s -west street on subject property. - ~ Commissioner Rowland then stateci tha.c this si:tuatior. would exist until ! a det~rmination was made as to the disposition of the school p.roperty. ; Mr. Granzow re~plied that if residential use was proposed f•o:.- the school sit~a, the existin st b t ~ r g u s reets could be extended northerly az:d then westerly, with access bein id d g prov e through the property to the south. to Zaara Stree±:. ~ ,;`~ Commissioner Rowlan3 r.o#ed that if the school property were -•.e~oped =or multiple-family use, this would present another problem sin,e che Commission did ~ ~,,,.,, not permi t a mix of traffic from two residential uses. ~~ ' ~' Mr. ~sanzow replied that he did not adhere zo that position since it was h is ~ . npin3on that the R-1 would use these str~ets more than the R-3 would. ~ . THE HEAR7NU WAS CLOS£D. ! ,~ Commissione:- Rowland then ,stated it was his understanding that ta~ recommenda- tion of the '1'~•aff3.c Enginen.r wa:, thh~ the City would accommodate the cul-de-• ' . sac and a pxi•:ite easement; whezeupon Mr. Granzow stated this was c~orrect, however M R b , r. o erts had just; advised him that the pricate street wovtd nc+± be wid .} e enough if acce~s to carports,was permitted to and from the t.raffi~: flow I easement, as well as off-street, open parking. Commissioner Rowland then noted that a private strePt should ther, be raq~~ired ~ ' to have the same width as a pub~ic street, which would mean all the developer y ` would be obtaining was permission to maintain a pri.:dte :;treet in perpetuity ~ of a standard street ~ection. , Mr. Granzow noted that with a private street, any deve"topment a~ijacent to it would not be governed b,~ the setb:~cks normal.ly xequired of dr~;_,;ated strLets •- : this woald spread 3,50Q trips quite evenly over e::its and wou1~3 el.imina.te tY.e ;: pressure on the regular art~erials. v ~ Commissioner Rowland stated he wznted to a~ake sure that if the C~~^missi.^,ii '.,,,. allowed a cul-de-sac witn a privste essement in recognizing the !:r.affic characteristics generated by the properi:y, a.nd the given traffic load on Broadway and Loara Street, then the Commission wou].d liave to insist - in ord~r = to sa isfy those loads - on a standard street sect~on to be construct~.d as a priva~e easement in order to make sure these traffic loads could i;e han@le3 in a,manner the City desired; and that if the City permitted connection f ~ Broadway to the private street, this would do the City a favor hy havinc ~` street maintenance gratis. ,~ i ~ ~ - ~_~, ' -=.._- ....,u . ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ .~ "~~1 ; _, R ~..~'~„~',.~;,,,;~ _ f _, _ . ~.~--- -~ - -- ' --- ' - - ' ~-~ - .~'- -.. ._-~. ,.----~J-'-- _--- --.9 k~; _ : a.::-._....~.___ . 1 i ti c .:t. '~~: .~~~:X h - 'w ; il ~:; ..~ ': I, ~ I t ' / ~ --~s~.~'~ _ . . . ,.,~ --- f ~ ~~ ~ ~ g eso ution was passed ~:y the followinq vote: AFES: COMMISSZONERS: Allrad, Gauer, Ka wood NOES; COMMISSIONERS: None. y ~ Rowland, Seymour. ABS::'.NT.: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. Herbst. MINUTES, CITY PLAN~,STN~ ~OD;MISSrON, November 1, 1971 71-677 AREA DEVELOPMEN'1 PLAN NO. 107, PECLASSIFICATION NOS. 70-71-93 AND 71-72-],g(Con't Commi,si~oner Allred obs;;rved, upun looking at the plan, that the developer was proposing all access presently tlzrou.gh a 30-foot easement which he felt should be wider than 30 feet. Office Engii:er Jay Titus advised tl.ie Commission that the developer would be gaining more with the private ~treet because of the setbacks compared to those required in public streets. °~ommissioner Rowl:~nd was of the op~nion that the plans before the Commission wouZd not be *_h.o t.tnal devplupment ,plans since ther~ was no access for both ve:icular a*1 oec?_~;;rriar. Lr:,ii?c which was necessary because t:~is was a large parcel, 3n: s,vs;n divid! :y it i.nta 40••unit sEqments the need was apparent; that it h~~~ a~c•±ai's been his attit~33e ing ar_ea develc~pmcet,t plans, if a dere:lo5ne o3mehi:;Pandnsubmittegssion regard- ~ had a better way 'cc separate pedestriar, aad ve.lzicular traffic, hepwouldtagreee ~ t~ it since this wou:d mean reducing th~~ a*:;•~rit of } way, and he ould be in fa~~or of such a r~e3uc•tion. pHowever~rthis1cular access- k had many lcose ends, buL he rn•uld agree t:4~:re was a circulation Proposal t therefore, he would prefe.r au~pting the ).ar= i3roblemj ~i.me as the dev~~loper cou.ld rresent a bc-n~er planenatdwhichttimeuthe1Commission eculd a::end their exhibit. Cominissioner Rowland offered Resolution N'o. PC71-209 and moved for its passage a~d adoption t.o adopt and recommen3 to the CiLy Council adoption of Area Deve.Lopment Plan No. 107, Exhibit"A': on the basis that the exnibit offered the hest possible s~alution for circuiation, however, if the owners or developers of tre property could present an ac~~~,table alternative later, the Cummission night recommand amendi:ig Ex~=,bit "A" acr.~rdingly. (See Reso~ution Book) Prior to roll c•a.li, Mr. Roberts asked for clarification in preparing the reso3utipn, was it the Commission's position that the approval indicated basic aznsent :tiy the Commission of the idea that there was a need for circu- lation in ~hat area, and that a finding be made that in the event a developer presentea an alternate to Exhibit "A'!, the Commis~son would be willing to re.view his proposal; whereupon the Commission stat.ed these statements just mad.e indicated their intent in ':hp approval of the area development plan. On roll call the foregoin r 1 Mr. Robertc further advised the Commission ti.;.t whatever action the Commission took on Reclassiiicatinn No. 71-72-18, it would govern the action to be taken on Reclassification No. 70-71-43 sincc ;:he former reclassification encompassed the nropeYty covered by the latter reclassification; t,~at Reclassification No, 70-7i-43 had haen continued numerous times, first to establish an area dev=~opment plaai and la`er to allow the property owners and devclopers to I present d~velopment plans; and that if the Commi~sion did approve Reclassi- !:ication No, 71-72-1g, the staff would sugqest continuance of Reclassification I No. 70-71-43 to allow time to contact the pet9.tioner-property owner and adv;se ' him of the Commi::sion's action and to determine whether or not he would like ~ to have hi~ petition terminsted, ~ , Commissioner Gauer then inquir.ed whether or not the Commission was consideriny + approving the plan presented; whereupon Chairman pro tem Seymour noted the Commission had approved the area development plan and was considering the reclassification request for the area encompassed by the area development plan; ~ tha;••. the motion alsc had a finding that if the developer wanted a I would have to ~ present specific plans or an alternate plan for circulation that ! would be acceptable to the City. I Mr. Roberts noted that since no waivers were requested if Reclassi~ication No. 71_72_lg was approved, the petitionar would have to zneet the site develop- ment standards of the R-3 Zone and the area development plan, and if approved by the City Council, this would be a resolution of intent that did not auto- matically rezone the property. P~urthermore, if Reclassification No. 71-72-~1~ were recommended for approval, he would suggest a minor change to Cpndition No. 1, which would require the appropriate street width dedic~.tion in accordance with Area Development Plan No. 107 rather than the S4 feet a~ s~t fortn i:n the Report to t;ie Commission, i~ ti i ' ~ ~i • ~ ---- ----' ------- --- E - ~ ~J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Nevember 1, 1971 ~ 71-678 AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 10%, RECLP_°^IFICATION NOS. 70-71-43 AND 71-72-18(Con't; Mr. H. R. McNeil, the petitioner un8cc Reclassification No. 70-71-43, appeared •- before the Commi.ssion and stated that since the Commission felt R-3 zoning was appropriate and since his property was also covered in Reclassification No. 71-72-18, he would withdraw his petition. , Mr. Roberts advise3 the Commission tnat since <. condition of approval covering parcel developmen~ was a recummended condition, the petit.ioner in Reclassifi- cation No. 70-71-43 could sLill develop in accordance with the R-3 2one under Recla~sification No. 71-72-18 and Area Development Plan No. 107. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-210 and moved for its passage and adopt,ion to recommend to the Ci*_•• Council that Petition for Reclassific.a- tio~ No':r 7T-72'-18 be approved, scbject to conditio•.s, with the recommended amenament to Condition No. 1 reg:irdinq dedication of the appropriate width for a new street in accordance with Area Development PZan No. 107. (See Resolution Book) - On roll ca~.l the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: 1 . AYiES: COMMISSIONERS: A~lred, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES . COMMIS5IpN'•a'~S: None. '~ A&SENT:. COMMISSIONERS: Far.;~no, Herbst. j•., Commissioner Kaywood i 5fered a motion to terminate all proceedings of Reclassification No. 70-71-43 on the basis r,hat the petitioner had indicated he?wou,ld proceed with rezoning his property under Reclassification No. 71-72-18 and w:oi:ld, there`ore, wit2~draw his petition. Commissioner Gauer seconded the mo£ion., MOTION CARRIEA, 'J j VARIANCE NO. 2281 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. J, P. EDMONDSON PROPERTIFS, LTD.,~ ;;i (READVERTISED) 1380 South Harbor £culevard, Anaheim, California, Owner; FEDERAL SIGN & SIGNAL CORP., 1100 North Main Street, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requesting waiver of (1) maximum ~ ~ aggreqate sign area, (2) maximum number of signs, (3) distan~e between free- '~~Yj standing signs, and (4) permitted sign loc3tion, to permit an additional free- - standing sign on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land :i ly,ing south and east of a 120-foot by 150-foot parcel of land located at the ~ so,utheast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Manchester Avenue and having frontages ~ ~' o£.:approximately 135 feet on Harbor. Boulevard and approximately 460 feet on ~ .ri Mancfies:ter Avenue. Property presently classified C-R, COMMERCIAL-RFCREATION, I ai ZONE . ! Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, past zoning act3on on the ~~ property, and the proposal to construct an uddit:onal free-standing sign along '' the Harbor Boulevard frontage; that the existing sign identified the theater, and the proposed sign would advertise the restaurant, even though the uses 1~ fronted on Manchester Avenue; that the Harbor Boulevard frontage provided ~~ parking area access; and that the proposed sign would be 20 feet high, contain '• ~10 square feet, and would be located 37 feet from the existing free-standing ~ 1 sign and only 18 feet from the southorly property line. r ~ Mr. McDaniel, in evaluating the pro;aosal, stated that the existing Aarbor ~ i ~- :i Boulevard frontage was 102 feet, and the existing sign contained 373 square ~ i feet; that an additional sign would not only add c~utter to the streetscape, y but would further exceed the area requirements; that the additional 40-square ~+ ;,; foot sign would create an ag,gregate sign area of 413 square feet, while only 1 ,~ > 204 square fee.t would be permitted; that it should be pointed out that the j ` ~naheim sign code was drafted specifically to prohibit this kind of sign ~;: clutter, especial~.y in the Commercial-Recreation Area; and that in light of ~ recent concern ov~r signing in the Comnercial-Recreatiun Area, the Commission ~ ~"-'~`` would wish to determine the a ro riateae PP p ss of granting the requested waivers to allow this additional free-standing sign. ~= Nu one appeared in opposition. , ~;. ,' ~t `. . . i . ~-- _.__ i. - - -_ C::.-~ ' _ .. _ ~., ~ . .. ._ , _ • - ... . ~f _ ; _~a ~ •'„~;~.o...~' _ . , ' ~ ! ` _~ I . ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMM2SSION, November 1, 1971 71-679 ~ VARIANCE NO. 2281 (Continued) Mr. William Barker, 1006 Lincoln, Fullerton, representiug the agent for the ~ petitioner, appearad before the Commission and noted that at the time the - theater sign request was before the Commission, the petitioner requested that some consideration be allowe/ him since he was planning to develop a . restaurant; that if the signing had been allowed for the restaurant at that time, the theater sign would not have been so much in escess of the Code - re2uirements; that the theater sign was also placed in the center of the Harbor Boulevard frontage on which an additional sign could not be placed .. ., because of the manner in which the sign was designed in an up-and-dowrt fashion; ';:..n,.- that the existing problem was brought to the Commission's attention, therefore, a hardship was being ex~:arienced by the petitioner because he had to pay for +'~ access for his property from Harbor Boulevard but no signing was permitted, Y~ even though he had advised both the Planninq Commission and City Council that •~ signing would be needed for the restau_ant. ~~ .a Chairman pro ter,; Seymour inqu;:ad whether or not the petitioner was the owner of the theater p•roperty. Whereupon Mr. Barker replied that the property for parking was jointly owned. 1 Commissioner Seymour then inquired whether Mr. Edmondson had appeared in opposition when the theater sign was considered; wisereupon Mr. Barker stated that Mr. Edmondson had advised the City that he wan•~ed some area for signing for the restaurant; and that the square footage was granted without consider- ing any future signing as set forth by Mr. Edmondson. Commissioner Seymour then inquired who owned the theater sign; whereupon Mr. Barker stated that the theater had one sign on Manchester Avenue on their ' own property and anothe.r sign on Harbor Boulevard, which was jointly owned by =; the petitioner and the owner-operator of the theater. ,,;:I _j Commissioner Seymour then noted he was attempting to determine if someone gave °`:,f the rights away when joint ownership of the property occurred on the Harbor ''j Bouelvard frontage. ~1 {;~ Mr. 7ames Edmondson, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and advised thE that the land for the theater was lease6 to M.G.S, and the parking area was leased jointly by himself and the owners of the theater; that when the ;,;j theater was built and later a sign zequest was considered, he had appeared ~' bEfore both the Planning Commission - who had denied his ~ petition - and City f•'; Council in opposition to advise them that it was his intent to establish a ~~ restaurant, and he wanted sufficient signing area left so that he could also ' have signing on Harbor Boulevard. >~ ;:;~ i `'~C~~ Commissioner Seymour then inquired whether or not Mr. Edmondson had any rights `~•:? to signiny in the leaseholding agreement; whereupon Mr. Edmondson stated that >`;; in his laad lease nothing was indicated as to rights of a sign. '''~ Commissioner Seymour then noted that the ro ert owner P P Y gave away signing 5 riqhts for the restaurant to the theater; whereupon Mr. Edmondson stated that ;; apparently this was so ~ince reference to signing was omitted on the ground ~ lease. - Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not Mr. Edmondson knew if his patrons came to the restaurant primarily from Harbor Boulevard or from Manchester ~' • Avenue; whereupon Mr. Edmondson replied he did not know, but since he speat =!~ considerable time on a daily basis at the restaurant, patrons had advised him that the}v could not find the place - their address being Harbor Boulevard which was selected because Manchester Avenue was difficult to find, since it ' was not a continuous road; and that the difficulty before was the fact that = the theater sign had already been erected, and it would have been difficult ~~ for the City Council to den,y a petition where a sign was already erected and which was a rather expensi•ve sign. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that the petitioner qualified as to hardship, however, he was not in favor of any moie signs in the Commercial- Recreation Area; and that the Commissic•n, whenever they had 7..:nch at the *i Smoke Tree Restaurant, knowing where it was located, used Manchester Avenue. .~c , . ..'~~~ _ . . . . . . '-. .. _ -~,y.- ~r'~' . _ ~.y _ . . . . . . .. . . " rf. . . - c .,. - j - ~' , . ~ . . , .. ~. :`. • ~ ~ _y ,~:-.,..~ ~ i . ~ .- - ~_, \..l \ i ~..,! MI:dUTES,, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 1, 1971 71-680 VAR?ANCE N0. 2281 (Continued) However, the existing si3n was not readily visible from Harbor Boulevard to both north and southbound vehicles. Commissioner Rowland observed he would like to have a score - and he did not think there was any way of getting it - on the number of times the Commission was the vehicle to bail out s~ many bad business ventures; that if the Council was authorized to bail out one more business venture, he would be happy to see them bail out one more, but then the Council vi.ewed business ventures in a different light than the Commission, and he respected that poir.it of view, but he was not interested in spinning his wheels any more than he Y,ad to; c•:~at the Commission had spent many hours on different element~ of the General Plan; that they were attempting to cut down the proliferation of signs in the Commercial-Recreation Area in particular; that the number of press observations in Time, Look, Life, and McDonald publications as to why Disney opened in Florida and purchased half the world--county was to avoid what happened in Anaheim, and he took that publicity as an indication of how he had done his job as a Planning Commissioner, evidently it was a~ery poor job because the praliferation continued, and he would not vote in favor of subject petition because he felt the Council should take another look at it since they had looked at it bef~-e and they could look at it again - maybe some day it would register that this s9.gn proliferation must stop somewhere. Commissioner Kaywood stated that when she drove north on HZrbor Boulevard she had no trouble in seeing the Smoke Tree building or sign. Commissioner Allred, noted that he was unaware of an access to a parking area from Harbor Boulevard, and he had passed bp this area fr~m both directions and had never had ~iifficulty in seeing the building or the sign. Commissioner Ruwlanri then noted that one would have to be very careless to try to gain access from the north, making a left-hand turn against such fast traffic, Even traveling farther south to a left-turn pocket. Cominissioner 5eymour stated that the Commission must consider the number of variances that had already been granted along Harbor Soulevard. However, the line must be drawn somewhere, as Commissioner Rowland had stated, but that line would be drawn when the Com:nission came up with a recommended sign amortization program - then the City would be able to get all the signs in line. However, he could not see denying this man any sigr'ng when he evidently had a problem when everyone along the street had signing, ,~id he felt this man had all the reasons to justify granting a variance. Hewever, he, too, wondered whether there was a need for another sign on Harbor Boulevard. Commi~sioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-211 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2281 on the basis that no hard- ship han been proven by the petitioner since the petitioner, prior to estab- lishing the restaurant, was aware of the fact that additional signing would not be permitted; tha*, the petitio~er had adequate signing on the street on which the entrance to the facility was located, although he indicated his address was on Harbor Boulevard; that the Planning Commission had been attempt- ing to reduce the proliferation of signs in the Commercial-Recrea`~.on Area, and approval of subject petition would be contrary to this action; that approval of this variance would be inconsistent with the sign amortization program presently under study by staff; and that there was no difficulty in observing the restaurant building as well as existing signing while one was proceeding northerly or southerly on Harbor Boulevard. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland. I NOES: COMMTSSIONERS: Seymour. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst. ~ ~ «. [ o-.:' = ._.._.. . .. _ . . . . . . . . . ... . ,. ~} ~ _ _ . . . , , . . •_ . -.-. j. -.X. .... ~ ~ , . .. .. . . , ~ - . , . ~ , • ~ ~ . . - ' ~ . .~~ . .. . i _ 1~^ ~J ~ ; ='" ~ ~ V MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 1, 1971 ~~ 71-681 TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVEI,OPER: L. A. COUNTY LAND COMPANY, 111 West Third TRACT NO. 7426, Street, San Dimas, California. ENGINEER: Aall & Foreman, REVISION NO. 2 Inc., 2530 North Grand, Santa Ana, California.' Subject tract, consisting of approximately 9.4 acres, is located on the nort•h side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, approximately 900 feet east of Lakeview Avenue, and is proposed for subdivision into 36 R-1 zoned lots. Subject tract was considered in conjunction with Variance No. 2257 by the Planning Commission on July 26, 1971, and by the City Council on August 17, 1971. Assistant Zoning Supexvisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, previous action by the Planning Commission and City Council, and the fact that the City Council had directed staff to set for public hearing before the Commission and Council consideration of amendments to conditions pertaining to the Scenic Corrido.r that had been attached to zoning actions in the Santa Ana Canyon prior to the adoption of the Scenic Corridor Overlay (SC) Zone; and that since the SC 2one was now in effect on these properties, said conditions would no longer be necessary since development would still have to meet the SC Zone requirements, the Hillside Grading Ordinance, as amended, and the Subdivision Ordinance. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to delete Condition No. 10 of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7426, Revision No. 2, on the basis that st:bject property was now covered by the SC 2one, and development would occur in accordance with said zone, the Hillside Grad- ing Ordinance, as amended, and the Subdivision Ordinance. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Chairman pro tem Saymour noted that since the following three items pertained to amending condi~.tons on property approved for development in the Santa Ana Canyon, which now was covered by. the SC 2one, they would be considered together. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARZNG. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL, NO. 69-70-25 204 East Lincoln Avenue Anaheim C . , alifornia; property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 90 acras having a frontage c' approximately 3,780 feet on the south side of Esperanza Road, approximately 2„i00 feet east of Imperial Highway. To consider amendment to conditions. RECLASSIFICATION - PIIBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY COCNCIL, N0. 70-71~13 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 110 acres having a frontage of approximately 460 f~et on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road between Imperial Highway and Royal Oak Road. To consider amendment to conditions. RBCLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARZNG. IN7TIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL, 1~0. ~0-71-25 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; property described as: .~,n ~Lrregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of a,~ioximately 242 acres having a frontage of approxxmately 6,088 £eet on the south side of Esperanza Road, approximately 4,977 feet east of Imperial Highway. To consider amendment to conditions. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject properties, previous action taken by the Planning Commission and City Council, and the fact that the City Council had directed staff to set for public hearing before the Commission and Council consideration of amendments to conditions pertaining to the Scenic Corridor that had been attached to zoning actions in the Santa Ana Canyon prior to the adoption of the Scenic Corridor Overlay 2one, and that since the SC Zone was now in effect on these properties, said conditions wauld no longer be necessary since development would have to meet the SC 2one requirements, the Hillside Grading Ordinance, as amended, and the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. ~eff Millet, representing the property owners under Reclassification No. 69~i0-25, appeared before the Commission and inquired where they would be in cpnfllct with the conditions originally imposed - would this affect the tentative tract maps approved as it pertained to the 1~:1 slope; whereupon _ _ ' 4~ _ ~.. , ~'.F- i ; > ~ ~. __-__~ o ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANivING COMMISSION, November 1, 1971 71-682 RECLASSIFICATION NOS. 69-70-25, 70-71-13, AND 70-71-25 (Continued) Mr. McDaniel replied that i£ the 1}:1 slope was needed for safety of the slope and a geologist's statement could be submitted substan±iating this, then waiver of the 2:1 slope would be granted by the City Engineer. Mr. Millet noted that they wculd be refiling their tract maps since the boundaries of the Yorba Regional Park had finally been established. Mr. Roger Lindeman, representing Calprop Corporation and Bernardo Yorba, et al, under Reclassification No. 70-71-13, appeared before the Commission and noted ~,~ that they were developing Tract No. 7288 as a townhouse development under single-family conditions, and he wanted to make sure that they will not be a~ required to comply with Sectiea 18.59.032(2) regarding the 50-foot setback ~{ from the Imperial Highway right-of-way line. _ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that at the time the public hearing `. was held on this.matter before both the Commission and City Council, the question of setbaoks from 2mperial Highway had been discussed, and everyone ~ was aware of the fact that the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone would require a _ greater setback, but both.the Commission and Council indicated they would approve a lesser setback. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-212 and moved for its ~assage and adopticn to recommend to the City Council that Condition No. 5 of ; Resolution No. 71R-52 in Reclassification No. 69-70-25 approved by the City `~ Council on February 9, 3971, be amended and deletion of said condition thereof since it was no longer necessary because deve2opment of the property would . ;~ still have to meet the SC 2one requirements, the Hillside Grading Ordinan~ce, !•~ -~ as amended, and the Subdivision Ordinance. (See Resolution Book) y `:4 a~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. :~,:k: NOES; COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst. ::I !:, ,' Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. FC71-213 and moved for its ~passage ~ and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Condition Nos. 5, 6, and 7 ;.':;~ be ieleted fsom Resolution No. 71R-25 approved on January 19, 1971, for ~` ~= Reclassification No. 70-71-13, on the basis they were no longer necessary '',~'`.>~~ since development of the property would still have to meet the SC Zone , requirements, the amended H111side Grading Ordinance, and the amended w'~ Subdivision Ordinance. (See Resolution Book) _, ;~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ,-f ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst. _ Coma~issioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-214 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Condition No. 5 of Resolution No. 71R-53 approved on February 9, 1971, for Reclassification No. 70-71-25 be deleted on the basis that it would no longer be necessary since development of the property would still have to meet the SC Zone requiremen±s, the amended Hillside Grading Ordinance, and the amended ' Subdivison Ordinance. (See Resolution Book) k .' ~ C. . ~~: ~j ~I ti a ..~! '. On roll call the foregoing resolutian was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIO~ERS: Allred, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst. i ~ i ,ti ~ ~, ' '~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CxTY PLANNING COMMISSION, November l, 1971 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HE~RING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL, NO. 70-71-40 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 11 acres on the east side of Walnut Canyon Road, approximately 2,000 feet south of Santa Ana Canyon ,: Road. To consider amendment to conditions. Zoning Supervisor Charles Robe~cs noted for the Commission that subsequent to advertising subject petition, staff had determined that there was no ~ necessity to amend any of the conditions since this was already accomplished ~~ rz- on May 25 1971 b : .. ~ ~` ~:a: ~ ]~ ..,: .~ ~, removal of the item fromCthe agendalandTnorfurthersaction~beingetakennas to amendment of conditions. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to terminate any further consideration of amendment to conditions of Reclassification No. 70-71-40 on the basis that this amendment had taken place at the May 25, 1971, City Council meeting. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS - Chairman pro tem Seymour declared a ten-minute recess at 3:55 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman pro ~tem Seymour reconvened the meeting at 4;07 P.M., Commissioners Farano, Herbst, and Rowland being absent. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS~ 1313 South PERMIT NO. 1275 Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A WAREHOUSE AND ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES IN SUPPORT OF A THEME-TYPE AMUSEMENT PARK WITH WAIVER OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT A PARCEL HAVE FRONTAGE ON A DEDICATED STREET on property described as: An irxeqularl.y-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6 acres not fronting on a dedicated street but lying approximately 300 feet south of the c~nterline of Ball Road and approximately 665 feet east of the centerline of West Street. Property ~ presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject i property, uses established in close prcximity, previous zoning action on the ! property, and the proposal to construct a 116,600 square foot warehouse on the rear portion of subject property; that the existing single-family resi- dence on the front portion would remain as is for the present; that a parcel map was being filed by the applicant to split the front and rear portions of the property; that a reading of the ordinance for C-R zoning would be requested on the rear portion only; that a private drive along the easterly boundary of the property would serve as access to the warehouse from Global Way; that the property in question appeared on the General Plan as being appropriate for commercial-recreation uses, and.it aould appear that the construction of a warehouse as an expansion of the Disneyland theme park would be appropriate in this location; and that although the created parcel would not have frontage on a public street, a private drive was being provided from Global Way, and the property was attached to the existinq Di,sneyland park with appropriate service roads for ingress and egress to the property from the south. There- fore, it would appear that not having frontage on a public street would not affect the usability of this property. Commissioner Rowland returned to the Council Chamber at 4:09 P.M. Mr. Rich Irvine, representing Disneyland, indicated his presence and avail- ability to answer questions. Commissioner Rowland indicated that staff's documentation was self-explanatory. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ , . . . _ ¢,~. ,. _ . _ , .. .. . -- ..~n. . . . , . . . . . .. _ . ~ . ~ ~ . . .~~ . r„ ,r ~•r.. . . . ,~ . - ~ ~ :. ~.~- . . .., ~. , , . ~ ~: .. . ~ . . . . . ~ . . , . ~i.'n-~+.,... .. _ ~~ . .. . ~ ' . . . ~ . ~ - ~~~ ~ , i., - .- - ~ . . ~ . . _t , ~. ~ . .. . ~ ' .. ~ . ~' .. ~ ~Y. , .. ...1 _ . ' • ' . i1 . J./ _ . { . ~ -.. I ( ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 1, 1971 71-684 CONDITIONAL US~, PERMIT NO. 1275 (Continued) 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that an additional condition should be attached, namely, that Condition Nos. 1 and 4 be comcleted prior to the issuance of a building permit, etc., and that Condition No. 6, the present Condition No. 5, be amended to No. 6, iieleting reference to Condition No. 1, and present Condition No. 6 be re-numbered No. 7. Commissioner Herbst entered the Council Chamber at 4:10 P.M. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-215 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1275, subject to conditions, including the amendments as set forth by staff. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, SCaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMDfISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ABSTP,IN: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. Mr. Roberts further advised the representatives of Disneyland that since a parcel map was required to be recorded prior to reading of the ordinance for the C-R Zone, the building permit could only be issued after the first read- ing had taken place, subject to the petitioner's assuming full responsibility in the event the City Council took a contrary action. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC AEARING. 0'MEARA, CHANDLER CORP., 4140 Southwest PERMIT NO. 1272 Freeway, Houston, Texas, Owner; OCCO Corporation, P, O. Box 1938, Houston, Texas, Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES SERVING COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY WITH WAIVER OF MINIFfUM REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING AI,ONG AN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 9 acres located south and east of the southeast carner of Ball Road and State College Boulevard, having approxi- mate frontages of 460 feet on the south side of Ball Road and 460 teet on the east side of State College Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDani~l reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the proposal to construct two 25,500-square foot office build- ings on a portion of subject property, which would be the first phase of what would appear to be a three-phase project over the entire property; that the proposed office buildings would be located in the southeast corner of the property and would be surrounded with ample paved parkinq area; that the plans indicate a network of paved driveways that would serve as ingress and egress to both Ball Road and State College Boulevard; that on the basis of a previously approved commercial development plan, the Anaheim General Plan designated this property as being appropriate for commercial use, and the proposed two-story office structure, then, would be in conformity with the General Plan; tkeat Area Development Plan No. 94, which was adopted in keeping with the principle of maintaining a sufficient buEfer or transition area between the parcels fronting on Ball Road and the industrial properties to the south, required all properties within the study area between Belhaven Street on the east and State College Boulevard on the west to be developed with a 65-foot building setback from the south property line; that a 6-foot masonry wall be erected along the southerly boundary of the properties and a 10-foot wide planter strip with irrigation facilities and reasonable landscaping, including 15-gallon trees on 20-foot centers, be installed and permanently maintained for the full distance of said wall, and the proposal would conform with said area development plan with the exception that instead o~ the 10-foot wide planter area, an 8-foot wide planter area was proposed. In 'addition, the plans also indicated an 8-foot wide front landscaped planter area• rather than the required 10 feet, and although the 2 feet would appear to be technical, the Commission might wish to consider that the entire project at this point was flexible enough so as to allow a revision in plans to provide for the additional 2 feet in conformity with the Code. Therefore, the Commission might wish to determine whether this use would be appropriate.in this location, provided that all requirements of the Anaheim Municipal Code were met. ; . . , _~ ,. ` ~ r ~ i ~ ~ ~._~_~___ ---- -- ---- - --- ----- ~._..,.m.. - ~ ~-~ t.~ ,. MINOTES, CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 1, 1971 • 71-685 - CONDITIONAI.; USE PERMIT NO. 1272 (Continued) No one appeared in opposition. Mr. Larry Gulihur, director of real estate, Western Divis~.on of O'Meara, Chandler Corporation, appeared before the Commission and indicated he was , available to answer questions. However, there were several items on which he would ltke to obtain some answers. Chairman pro tem Seymour noted that if he was speaking ~pecifically of the _ required front setback, if the petitioner could demonstrate that a hardship ~ would exist if the 8 feet were not permitted, he wouid lik.e this information. ', . _.,..` Mr. Gulihur replied that he would withdraw sa3d waiver and would stipulate ~- to providing the 10-foot landscaping along the arterial property line. Furthermore, they were spending considerable money in landscaping and felt ' that a 6-foot masonry wail would be rather ugly, and then stated that they ; had submitted a landscapin.g plan to the Development Services Department and requested that consideration of Condition Nos. 6 and 12 be left to the ? discretion of the planning staf.f. 1' Commissioner Seymour noted tliat in accordance with Area Development Plan No. 94, the 10-foot planter strip was the minimum required by said plan. ~' Mr. Gulihur replied that they had been trying to avoid the straight 10-foot r~; line on the south property line by proposing both an 8-foot and 10-foot line ~ with staggered landsca ~ ~ ~~-p ping area. Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that to leave this to be resolved ~,`~~ by the staff was p],acinq too great a load on staff and should be resolved i^ '-i by the Planning Commission. n y Commissioner Herbst noted that one of the basic reasons for a buffer strip .=~ at the outset was to protect the people building there from the industrial '~ area since the Commission had felt that if industry came in later, they would ~„ 1 have to build a wall, and the proposed use was encroaching into ths industrial al area. Therefore, if the petitioner could demonstrate to the Conmission that ~`_~ they could do a better job of buffered landscaping in said setback, then plans ,:~ should be brought back to the Commission for their review and approval - that ~ this was a requirement the Planning Commission placed on the property, and if `~ the Commission relaxed that requirement, they should havp the opportunity to ':i look at a::N xerised plans. ":s 1~1 Mr. Gulihur stated that they wanted to go ahead with construction of their `.} building and did not wish to be delayed, and then inquired as to the length ~.y'?' of time it would take to bring t'he plan back to the Commission. " Mr. Roberts stated that if plans were in the Development Services Department within ten days, they would be brought before the Planning Commission on _ November 15. '.~ Both Commissioners Seymour and Rowland were of the opinion that the Commission "`r should review plans before a pproval of subject petition was granted. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Roberts noted for the Commission that since the petitioner had withdrawn his waiver o£ the landscaped setback along the arterial, plans for the land- ` scaping that would have to be submitted for Planning Commission consideration ''~ would be for those along the south ft property line. - Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Cammission that subject petition aould be appro,;~d subject to submission of revised plans. Mr. Roberts then explained to the Commission the dilemma staff would be in since~if the Commission recommend approval in accordance with all conditions ~ and decided the new plan was better and Condition Nos. 6 and 12 were not needed, then another public hearing would have to be held to delete these conditions from the resolution. Therefore, he would suggest a continuance. ' ; :. ,.. ._, . ; ,` ._... _; ~~ ~ - ~ ' ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIGN, November 1, 1971 71-686 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1272 (Continued) Commissioner Herbst then stated that he could see no reason why subject petition could not be acted upon by requiring them to meet all of the conditions, and if revised p2ans were then submitted - although he did not know if he would approve these revised plans since he felt that the petitioner should meet the minimum 10-foot landscape strip - then a later public hearing could be held if these conditions were deleted. Commissioner Seymour noted that the Commission in the past had approved conditional use permits and revised plans had been submitted to the Commission for approval - why couldn't the sar~e be handled on subject petition? Mr. Roberts advised the Commissivn that the two conditions referred to, T?os. 6 and 12 as to wall and landscaping, were part of the area development plan, and it was not quite the same as when plans were submitted with a petition. Mr. Roberts, in response to a question by the agent for the petitioner, indicated that he doubted very seriously that the Building Department would review plans prior to City Council reviewing same. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC71-216 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1272, subject ; to conditions as set ~orth in the Report to the Commission and subject to the '~$ withdrawal of the waiver reqarding required setback landscaping along the arterial highway, as stipulated to by the petitioner. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIOTJERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. y: ~s,..t~~ ~ ~i. :,: i~ 1c r; .~t ,: VARIANCE NO. 2299 - PUBLIC HEARING. EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY, 8100 Florissant, St. Louis, Missouri, Owner; CLIFF WOLFE, 606 South Olive Street, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (1) PERMITTED USES, (2) MAXIMUM FREE-STANDING SIGN AREA IN THE SETBACK AREA, AND (3) MAXIMUM SIGN AREA TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RETAIL SALES FACILITY on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 9.6 acres having a frontage of approximately 889 feet on the east side of Magnolia Avenue, having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 605 feet, and being located approximately 1,582 feet north of the ce~terline of La Palma Avenue, and further described as the southeast corner of Magnolia Avenue and the Santa Ana Freeway. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the proposal to construct a 111,200-square foot warehouse and. retail sales facility with parking and landscaping being provided in accord- ance with Code; that the petitioner had indicated the proposal was to manu- facture, assemble, warehouse, sell and distribute farniture ~and related accessories in the proposed building. Mr. McDaniel, in evaluating the proposal, noted that irrespective of the intent to manufacture, assemble, and warehouse furniture at this location, it would appear that the primary function to be conducted at this location would be the retail selling of furniture; and that the Anaheim General Plan indicated this area as being appropriate for industrial development as all the property surrounding the proposal was industrially developed with the exception of property to the north across the Santa Ana Freeway, and the freeway served as a natural buffer between commercial and residential uses and the industrial uses. Therefore, the Commission might wish to consides• this c~ommercial pro- posal to be an intrusion into an existing industrially zoned and master planned area, in addition to an intrusion into an area that was presently used primarily for industrial purpeses. Mr. McDaniel noted that the applicant had stipulated that he was agreeable to pursuing the variance on the assumption that they could operate within the sign limitations for the zone applicable to the subject property. However, ~ . ~:~~-~.a~et. -, -- - . ,. ~, . _ - . , ! - i r - ~ I - ---~ - ~ - Q ~ MINUTES, CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, November 1, 1971 VARI~;NCE NO. 229g (Continued) .." , ~ 71-687 should the proposed owner decide at a later date that signs would be needed, the specifications miqht vary with the limitations included within the applicable zone, they would, at that time, file a new petition for variance for the siqn. ~ Mr. Cliff Wolfe, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that they had sold this parcel subject to granting of the variance to _ allow the proposed use; that the actua.l footage for this proposal was 185 000 ~;:,;-~ 1 ~k •~ , '; i ,::~ ; ;~ :~~'. ;:~I : h" ; ! ~. ~.~~~i':,~ ~ . ~i I square feet, 115,000 being for the warehouse and 60,000 for the retail area; that they also proposed to utilize a portion of the facility for their western regional office space in which they would have fifteen additional employees; that one of the problems they were faced with if this use were conducted in the commercial zone was the warehousing problem since they would need a rail- road spur track to bring the wares to this facility; that the building would be a tilt-up type building which e:ould not reveal from the outside what type of use was being made of the existing structure; that there would be some economic benefits to the City with this facility since the retail sales could be up to ten million dollars per year and would provide a hundred additional jobs; and that the real estate representative for the Wi,ckes Corporation was present in the event the Commission wished to question him. Commissioner Herbst expressed concern and inquired if this represented ten million dollars in sales - what type of commercial traffic would these sales generate? Whereupon Mr. Wolfe replied that he did not know, but the items that would.be sold were never small items. Commissioner Rowland inquired as to what Emerson Electric planned for the balance of the property; whereupon Mr. Wolfe replied that the property had been placed on the market and indicated a demand for industrial property; that tentative plans for industrial development were pending, but those plans would wait construction of a street at right angles to Magnolia Avenue, approximately 1,200 feet south of the intersection of the Santa Ana Freeway and Magnolia Avenue; and that he would like to emphasize that he had done considerable developing in Anaheim, and those buildings included many retail uses, schools, etc., and the proposed use would be compatible with the uses established in this area. Mr. Bob Sharp, representing Cal Comp Corporation, appeared before the Commission and stated he was not exactly in opposition, but wanted to make some comments - that they had purchased their property to the east of the Emerson parcel because it was surrounded by M-1; that he recognized some problems would occur when commercial uses abutted manufacturing uses, such as security problems and vandalism; that they recognized this use had some commercial aspects, and even though there was some assemb7.y work proposed, they wanted to go on record as being opposed to any further commercial development along Magnolia Avenue south of the freeway and requested that the industrial integrity of the area be maintained since if additional commercial facilities were allowed, it would bring this commercial development to their rear door. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-217 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 229g, in part, granting waiver of the permitted uses only, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. . . ~ '~ .r ~ ~ . ~ - .... ... . . .. ..-. . . . e1L..~ti~..'... , , . .. . . ....... , . , ' . ' ~ . ~ . . ~1 . ' _.... '~ .... , . . . ~ ~ ~ - ~ . ~ .. . ~. ~ . . . .. . , . .. . . .. _ . ., . , . .. ~ ' ~~ ~ ~ ; ,i ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 1, 1971 ~ 71-688 VARIANCE Ni1. 23Q1 - PUBLIC HEARING. OSCAR AND MAGDALENE MANG, 1027 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owners; KENNETH DALE CLAUSEN, 2827 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED SPECIAL STRUCTURAL SETBACK ON HARBOR BOULEVARD TO ESTABT,ISH AN ENCLOSED RESTAURANT on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxi- mately one acre, having a frontage of approximately 200 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 375 feet, and being located approximately 420 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road, and further described as 1027 south Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location cf subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal ±o establish a 300-seat, enclosed restaurant with the structure proposed to be set at an angle to the street and would have a setback of 20 feet from the ultimate right-of-way line at one location and 35 feet from the ultimate right-of-w~y line at another location; that special setback requirements on Harbor Boulevard would require a minimum 50-foot structural setback with landscaping averaging 20 feet in depth or a minimum 35-foot structural setback, the entire 35 feet to be fully landscaped; that the development, as proposed, would thus not be in conformance with this requirement; that special setback and landscaping requirements had been established by the City Council for Harbor Boulevard from 440 feet south of Vermont Avenue to Orangewood Avenue for the purpose of enhancing the visual qualities of the main thoroughfare traversing Anaheim's Commercial-Recreation Area; and that at a meeting on February 9, 1970, the Planning Commission granted a reduction of the 35-foot setback to 20 feet on the property adjacent to the south. Commissioner Rowland inquired of the agent for the petitioner what his specific hardship was; whereupon Mr. Clausen stated that the Commission had granted a similar easement to the south, and this would hinder their exposure to traffic. Commissioner Rowland noted that i£ the petitioner had reviewed both his plans as compared to the plans proposed to the south of his property, he would have noted that the proposed setback on subject property would have blocked the view of the property to the south; and that the petitioner could comply with the 35-Eoot building setback without losing any exposure to oncoming traffic. Ccmmissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-218 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2301 on the basis that the petitioner had not proven a hardship existed in the development of his property; that due to the curvature of the street, approval of the proposed setback would create a hardship on the property to the south, even though it was granted waiver of the setback after hardsTtip had been proven; that there were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that did not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zor~e; and that the requested variance was not necessary for the preservation and enjoy- ment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property in question. (5ee Resolution Book) on roll call the fozegoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. CONDITIONAL USE - PUSLIC HEARING. KOLL INCOME PROPERTIES, P. C), Box DK, PERMIm NO. 1273 Irvine, California, Owner; COLDWELL, BANKER & CO., P. 0. Box 655, Sar.ta Ana, California, Agent; requesting permission to OPERATE A CLINIC FOR KIDNEY DIALYSIS, INCLUDING TREATMENT, TRAINING, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN AN EXISTING BUILDING on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 10 acres lccated at the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and Cerritos Avenue and having approximate frontages of 630 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard and 590 feet on the north side of Cerritos Avenue, and further described as 2051 East Cerritos Avenue. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. _ _ - ~~a~.:d~ ~ ,.:..-~»~,....: c ~ ~ M1~ ~ , - : ' ; I , ~ ~ ~~ ` ~ ~ \ `,~ ~'i=NUTES, CITY pLANNING COMMISSION, November 1, 1971 71-689 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 12i3 (Continued) Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the oroposal to establish a hemo-dialpsis center, including a training program tor patients in the use of the dialysi3 equ~pment; that the applicant was proposing to utilize approximately 5,~00 square feet oc a total 145,000-square foot, multiple-unit industrial building; that the petitioner further stated that the clinic would not be expanded beyond the confines of the building, and tlie use was considered to be clean, indoors, and compatible with other tenants in the center; that as a use that was provided for in the industrial zone as a conditional use, it appeared that this would have no adverse effects in allowing the use to be conducted within the building since parking and circulation had been provided for and would be adequate for the pronosed use; and that the.City Council, at their October 19 meeting, approved the temporary operation of ~th'e hemo-dialysis center whiie the conditional use permit was being considered by the Planning Commission. ~'; Chairman pro tem Seymour noted that the matter had been reviewed by the ~:; Planning Commission, and this particular type of use was normally run through the Comprehensive Health Planning Association of Orange County as to the need " of different types of services,.and that Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts _ was proposing to check with this committee to determine whether ur not they ~,, had reviewed it. ~ #' r.: Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that the Comprehensive Health Planning t;y Association of Orange County, upon contacting them, had stated they were not ;~ ~;: aware of the proposal, and while they did not express an opinio;n.;;for'or y~ against, they wanted to review this but would be unable to do so;:before - F NovemLer 10. ! ;' . Commissione~ Seymour noted that the City Council and the Planning.Commission ~ in the past had relied upon the Comprehensive Health Planning Association'of _ ~ Orange County for a report as to.the need. - Mr. John Allen, representing the petitioner, indicated his concurrence with the two-week continuance. i, Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition ~f for Conditional Use Permit No. 1273 to the meeting of November 15, 1971, in ' ~~ order to allow time for staff to receive a report from the Comprehensive Health Planning P_ssociation of Orange County regarding the proposed use. ; Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~` CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLTC HEARING. KOLL INCOME PROPERTIES, P. O. Box DK, PERMIT NO. 1274 Irvine, California, Owner; COLDWELL, BANKER & CO., P. O. Box 655, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A NON-INDUSTRIAL TRAINING CENTER OFFERING ; COURSES OF REAL ESTATE, MANAGEMENT COURSES, SECRETARIAL SKILLS, LANGUAGE5, ~ BTJSINESS MACHINE SKILLS, COMPUTER PROGRAMMING, BUILDING TRADE SKILLS, AND INDUSTRIAL VOCATION SKILLS on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped _ parcel of land consistinq of approximately 10 acres located at the northeast , corner of State College Boulevard and Cerritos Avenue and having approximate frontages of 630 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard and 590 feet _ on the norLh side of Cerritos A•ienue, and further described as 1440 South State College Bou2evard. Property presently cla.^sified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRTAL, ZONE. f.rr : "rw Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish ~:~;:. a non-xndustrial training center in a portion of the existing building; that '0 the petitioner proposed to utilize approximately 3,800 square feet of said `' building for the establishment of a training center that would offer courses ' in Real Estate and Management Courses, SecrP.tarial Skills, Languages, Business '~ Machine Skills, Computer Programming, Building Trade Skills, and Industrial Voc~ition Skills. - ' Mr. Anthony D'Arcey, 2206 West Lincoln Avenue, indicated his presence to ~'' answer questions, and fi.hat he would be operating the proposed facility. : ~e :, _ ;i ~~~ .. .. . . ,,_.. . ,.~. .._ - - . ~e - _ - ~: > s- ~, _ r . `. - ' , ~ . . , , . , . ~ _ _'' l . 'i . ~ . . . .: . ~ a"'; w .d.,... -- ~ -'~~A''~~'L'2~,'S~ ~TY PLANNYNG COMMISSION ~ ~~ , November 1, 1971 71-690 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1274 (Continued) No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-219 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1274, subject to conditions, on the basis that this use was similar to other uses that had been operated successfully throughout th~ community.' (See Resolution B~ok) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERSe Allred. Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONEP,S: Farano. REPORTS AND - TTEM NO. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-13 AND VARIANCE NO. 228g _ A.S.A.W.A. Corporation - Review of revised plans. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, zoning action taken by the Planning Commission on said petitions, and the purpose of presenting the revised plans to the Planning Commission, as set forth by the Report to the Commission. Mr. Roberts fuzther noted that the City Council would consider subject petitions at the November 9, 1971, public hearing, and that staff had presented the revised plans to the Planning Commission in order for the Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether or not the Commission would have rendered a different recommendation if the revised plans had been submitted to them at their hearing on August 23, 1971, The Commission reviewed the plans and discussed the newest proposal, after which Commissioner Kaywood noted that the pr.oposal was outrageous since the property was not located at the intersection of two arterials; that Rome Avenue ends at Beach Boulevard and is a fine residential street, and to consider approving subject petitions would be an invasion of commercial uses into a very attractive, single-family area; and that if the zoning was approved, every single-family homeowner having a home at a street inter- section could be in fear of a similar occurr0nce wherein commerCial uses would intrude into a residential area. Commissioner Kaywood further noted there were two islands on Beach Boulevard that should be planted with oleanders so that this area could be further protected from inva~ion of any similar types of uses. Chairman pro tem Seymour noted that approval of the plans submitted, in light of the fact that the petitioner had stated he proposed to develop these plans in three years, would place a cloud over this property since if it were not developed in three years, it would be extremely difficult to bring this property back into the R-1 classification. Furthermore, the petitioner could request an extension of time for the use in the existing home which would be a prostitution of the City's standards. Commissioner Herbst stated that the Planning Commission had recommended dis- approval of the use proposed in an existing home, and revised plans would in no way change the use for the property. Commissioner Kaywood further noted that the property on which zoning had been granted northerly of subject property and on which the ordinance had been read in July still bad no landscaping, even though the petitioner had advised the Planning Commission at the October 4, 1971, public heax•ing on Varianc:e No. 2293 that said landscaping was already being installed. There- fore, one would wonder if the statement made by the petitioner in subject petitions could be considered valid that the new structure would be built in three years. _. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to advise the City Council that the ~" revised plans for Reclassification No. 71-72-13 and Variance No. 2289 had been reviewed by the Planning Cemmission; however, these plans did not alter the Comnission's previous recommendation of disapgroval since this disapproval was based on the land use proposed and not on plans. Commissioner Herbst ~-' seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ . _~ . _ .e:.;` -.. .~w... . . .. . . _ ~ .. . . _ . . ~ . ~ ~~ - .. . - _ . . ~ ~-. . . . - ~ . , ~ ~~ ~ . .~ - . . _ - . ~,ia r ~ ~ . ^ ~ ~ _ ..M„4'~-~~.~ ~~I`a1~Ql~l~~~a~r _ ' ' ~ . ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 1, 1971 71-691 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued) ITEM IQO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1230 - Travel Trailer Park located on the west side of Beach Boulevard north of • Lincoln Avenue. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the previous request approved by _ the Planning Commission on March 22, 1971, for a 218-space travel trailer `: ;~a-:; park; that two of the conditions of approval were the driveway location _ along Beach Boulevard to be approved by the City Engineer and the State ~" Division of Highways, and that a 10-foot wide planter stri be along the northerly boundary and a 6-foot planter strip along the~south and west property lines; that the original plans indicated that all but ~ ':! 38 of the overnight spaces would be 40 feet deep, those 38 spaces to be 44 feet deep, and due to tne requirement for additional landscaping along the north and south boundaries of the park, the 44-foot deep spaces had been reduced to 40 feet, but while the reduced depth for the 38 spaces would not appear too signi£icant, staff felt that it would be appropriate to have _ these plans reviewed by the Planning Commission because of the Commission's action on the travel trailer park at the southwest corner of Ball Road and West Street, wherein the Commission required that 58 of the spaces be designed `_ to accommodate longer trailers, and in this particular case the park developer -';: provided 50-foot deep spaces for 58 of the lots. Therefore, the Planning ~c Commission might wish to determine whether the revised plans were substan- ` tially in accordance with the originally-approved plans and whether they met ';; the basic intent of the Planning Commission's a ;~~ pproval . ~ Commissioner Herbst noted that in the Commission's previous action taken on ,~ the trailer park approved on the southwest corner of Ball Road and West Street, , it was determined that although a majority of the travel trailers were 18 to ~1 30 feet long, there was a need for some spaces of larger size, and in order to ;~ have a good trailer park, such larger pads should be previ.ded. Mr. Joe Bonadiman, 127 Kendall Drive, San Bernardino, appeared before the G~ Commission and stated that when this was approved, they had attempted to comply with all of the requirements of the proposed Travel Trailer Ordinance; J that in order to meet the requirement of the Commission to have more green `? area, one tier of the spaces was reduced; that the number of spaces they now proposed was slightly more than originally approved based on the fact that i'~:~ the Commission required that no access be permitted to the west of subject ~ !~ property, and with the relocation of the access from Beach Boulevard, these ~ extra spaces were obtained. ~ Mr. Bonadiman noted that approximately 908 of the travel trailers built were ~ under 36 feet, and ap~roximately 85$ were under 32 feet in length; that most of the travel trailers in the travel trailer park his company owned were in the 32 foot and under size, some going down to 28 feet; that using these statistics, there appeared to be little need for the longer trailers, and they could be towed by cars; that the plans for the proposed trailer par;c were in plan check in the Buildiag Department now; that their plans met all of the requirements of the Planning Commission, however, this was an error on his part, and he did not feel there would be a problem to reducing the depth of these lots. Commissioner Allred inquired whether or not Mr. Bonadiman felt that persons towing these trailers would park their trailers and use their cars to park ; elsewhere; whereupon Mr. Boaad.iman stated that this would be the case since ' '; f^~ most of them would be using their automobiles to visit the amusement centers ~~ in the area, and that there was sufficient parking space allotted for these ~,"~ cars; that although he did not have the percentage of figures as to size of x: travel trailers, the Travel Trailer Coach Association had these figures, and he could obtain them. " The Commission and Mr. Bonadiman discussed the possible ways of amending the ~;j plan so that the number of larger ,paces could be provided, and upon its conclusion, Assistant Development S~rvices Director Ronald Thompson noted that the petitioner could reduce the size of the trailer spaces immediately *'•' adjacent to the planting strip on the south, adjacent to the Zody property, relocate the proposed street, and add the additional 4 feet to the tier of ''~ '' lots immediately north of said street. Furthermore, it was his opinion that ; ~ ~ i, ~ i. ..,~ ~ . s-'. . +; ,.:.. __ . . . ~ . _ .. .xy r f' ~ :i . - , ~ . - ---- , ` -L ; ~' , ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 1, 1971 `~~ ~ 71-692 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ZTEM NO 2(Continued) some rather broad-headed trees should be used in the planter area adjacent to the Zody property and still retaining the depth of the lots. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve revised plans of Conditional Use Permit No. 1230, subject to reducing the depth of the pad Nos. 33 throu~h 50 to not less than 30 feet of usable depth and to increase those pad Nos. . 51 through 67 by a minimum of 4 feet, thereby relocating the street further ,.~,,,,,-,,;, ~, south to accommodate this change in deptn. However, that all landscaping originally required shall remain along the south property line. Commissioner ~ ~-. _.; - : ~~••;: Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 'f', ITEM NO. 3 ` Request for clarification of permitted uses . ,a in the M-1 Zone. ' " ~ , ~~ ' Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that the Koll properties located at 1440 South State College Boulevard, two petitions '`' having been considered by the Commission at this hearing, were requesting an interpretation of the permitted uses to permit the establishment of a key punch service business in an industrial subdivision, and then read the latter from the proposed lessee of the property regarding the type of service and types of businesses they serviced (copy on file in the Develop- ment Services Department). Mr. Roberts further noted that the applicant had indicated there would he ' 12 employees, 11 keypunch machines, and 5 key-verifying machines, and that ~~ it would appear this business would not creste an undue burden upon parking facilities within this particular oomplex. However, staff would appreciate ~ an interpretation as to whether this type of business would fall within the ~ purpose and intent of permitted uses in the M-1 Zone or whether a conditional •j use permit would be required. ;•;;~ Discussion was held by the Commission with staff regarding the interpreta- ,-) tion, and upon its conclusion, Commissioner Herbst stated that it was his + interpretation of the M-1 Ordinance that the proposed use would be similar to the establishment of a bank in the industrial area since they were offer- '; ing a service to business and industry and because the use would be primarily geared to industrial uses or computer purposes. '` Commissioner Herbst offered a mction to clarify the intent of permitted uses in the M-1 Zone, statinq a key punch business geared to providing services \~~;; to commerce and industry as set i5orth in the request by Koll Business Center _ : to be located at 1440 South State: College Boulevard is a permitted use. ~' Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~; : ITEM NO. 4 Review of building materials company operation .~ in Miraloma. ,x 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted £or the Commission that the building _ materials company on South State College Boulevard wanted a representative of the Commission and staff to visit their operation in riiraloma to determine ;-, if this was a permitted use in the M-~. Zone; that the site selected would be ''`" `:'I adjacent to Neville Chemical Company on Winston Road, east of State College Boulevard; and that they felt the technological advances in thei.r fiel,d were =` `:r such that the proposed use would not be objectionaba.e in the M-1 2one. `;,: s~. Commissioner Allred noted that there was one located in Stanton which the 5 Commission could review; whereupor. Commissioner Rowland noted that the ~..`.. . ~;-< proposed use was somewhat different than that in Stanton. Mr. Roberts furtner noted that the availability of this trip would be the second week of November and asked whether one of the Commissioners could ~.j make the trip aith a member of the staff. Commissioner Gauer indioated that he would be available to make the trip on - Tuesday, November 9. ~: .At j. :I ... ~ ... . . . ~ . . ~ . - . . . . .. . . .Ix. ~ _. ..... - ? ..~.~'<'' ' - ~ ~ .. - . . .. ~ _ ^~ . ~ ~"~' ~ ]. - :-,.. t: ,. . , . ' ` ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 1, 1971 71-693 ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to adjourn the meeting to November 9, 1971, at 7:00 P,M. for a work sessioz. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 5:~0 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~,a ~r.~'~ ~~~~ z~~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ,~ ! ~ -- .. __._ . ~ ~I. .:.. _..._~:,_._ - ~