Loading...
Minutes-PC 1966/01/03~ ~ w ~ r ~ W \ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. . __ .y ' -- .,~.~~.,~' . _ _ _.~~m. - ° • , . - , r+>. Cit•~r Hall Anaheim, ~alifornia January 3, 1966 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quc •T being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Mungall, - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland. , ABSENT - COMMISSIONtRS: None. PRESENT - Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Planning Commission Secr2tary: Ann Krebs -~ INVOCATION - Reverend Arthur Stevenson, Assistant Pastor of the rirst Presbyterian Church, gave the Invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCt - Commissioner Camp led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting oi December 20, 1965, were approved THE MINUTES as submitted. VARIANCE N0. 1751 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. STAP~LEY Lo RO£EN, 509 Priscilla Way, Anaheir~, California, Owner; ARTHUR KOVACK, 1442 South Euclid Street, Fullerton, California, Agent; requesting N'AIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM RE(~UIRED FRONT YARD, (2~ MINIMUM RE(~UIRED RtAR YARD, (3) MINIMI,`M LOT WIDTH, AND (4) MINIMUM LOT AREA on property described asz A rectangula=ly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 112 feet on the east ~ide of Western Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 276 feet, the southerly boundary of subject property being approxi- mately 549 feet north of the centerline of Sall Road, and further described as 844 South Westezn Avenue, to develop subject property with four sin~le-family residential luts. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, Z~NE. ~~i ~ ,at~ Subject petition was continued from the meeting of December 6, 1965, in order to allow the petitioner time to sutmit revised plans incorporating a reduction of at least 25% in densitv. and for the Planning Staff to determine whether or not the petition should be readvertised as a conditional use permit. Zoning Supervi=_or Ronald Thompson advised the Commission th~t the petition as originally advertised was considered by the City Attorney's office to be the proper vehicle for the proposed requesto Further that the requested waiver for the rear yard requirement, Lot i width and area requirements would be unnecessary if the petitioner were reqi,ired to reclassi~,~ i subject property to the R-1, One-Family Residential, Zoneo ~ Stanley Rosen, the petitioner~ appeared before the Commission and stated that Mr: Arthur Kovack, the developer, was available to answer technical questions. The Commission reviewed ~L.r revised plans ta determine whether they met with their request ` ~ at the previous hearing, ~ 10 one appeared in opposition to sLbject petition> ' THE HEARING WAS CIASED. , I The Commission, in discussing the recommended conditions of approval by the Interdepart- mental Committee and Development Services Department, noted that conditions of Reclassifica• tion No. 62-63-40, reciassifying the property to the R-1 Zone, had a resolution of intent pending, and that one of the cond•'.tions of approval was the requirement that all condition. be met in said reclassification. CoR~missioner Allred offered Resolution No. 1890, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded Uy Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition :or Variance Noa 1751, with a findina that if subject property were reclassified to the R-1 Zone, waivers of the rear * yard :e.;~irement, lot width and area requirements would not be nec~ssary, and subject to conditions. {See Resolution Book.) 2875 ,. .. . ..;,, _ ,. . _ . . .._ . ~..,._.~.~_. _ ... _.. ,,, ~ ~ ._: _ , - ~ . _.- - - `. E MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 3, 1966 2g76 VARI~]CE NO, 1751 - On roll call the foregoing resolutinn was passed by the following (Continued) vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mu~gall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. , COt~DITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGo J. P, RALSTON, 8841 Anthony Avenue, Garden PERMIT N0. 795 Grcve, California, and OPAL STEIB, 2310 East La Palma Avenue, AFlaheim, , T~~ ~r,:Sfornia (Parcel Noo 1), and ALBERT GUDES, 930 Laguna Road, ~ullerton, ~ ~alifornia (Parcel No< 2), Owners; REVEREND GERALD R. CARTtR, 7902 E ~ Lessue Avenue, Stan~on, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A CHURCH '~~ AUDITORIUM RND SUND~Y SCHOOL IN AN EXISTING STRUCTURE on property described ass Two . I rectangularly shaped adjoining parcels of land with a total and combined frontage of approximately 172 feet on the north side of Crange Avenue: Parcel No~ 1 being approximately i 97 feet by 135 feet in size, the westerly boundary lying approximately 755 feet east ~f the centerline of Nutwood 5tree~, and Parcel No. 2 being approximately 75 feet by 147 feet and t~ lying imr.~ediately east of and adjoining Parcel No. 1, and iurther described as 1831 and E I - 1837 West Orange Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. :•`I Subject petition was continued from the meeting of December 20, 1965, in order to provide ~~ the Right-of-Way Department ~ufficient time to check on the status of the existing right- ~' of-Nay on the north side of Orange Avenue in this area. °, i ~•^ i Reverend Gerald Carter, Pastor oi the Cypress Full Gospel Church, appeared before the ~, Commission and stated it was proposed to use the existing structures for Sunday school ;~ classes and church facilities. Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that a number of attempts had been made to cnntact the property owner of the 28-foot parcel to tt~e east oi subject property in order to determine whether dedication and improvements could be obtained if subject pet~tion were approved, however, the staff was unsuccessful; that the property owner of the small parcel also was ;.he owner of property immediately easterly of this, and at the time of strr~et widening for tnose parcels eastei~ly of subject property was initiated, the property owner had had a disao,reement with one of the petiti~ners of subject petition, and would not dedi- cate his property for improvement - however, since a change in property owners would be antici~al:ed if subject petition were approved, in all likelihood dedication and street improvements would be obtained. ~ Reverend Carter, in response to Commissicn questioning, stated that it was anticipated to obtain t~ie portions of the property to the rear in the event it was necessary to expand the church facilities; that within two years it was anticipated to remove the older structure and construct a new buildinq; and that adequate parking would then be provided .or the pro- posed new structure. Zoning ~upervisor Ronald Thompson advised the '~ommission that the property owner of the narrow pa,rcel to the east had expressed concern the parishioners would be encroaching on his property by parking and requested that a block wall be constructed~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Thompson, in further clarification of the req~~est for a block wall requirement, stated the Code required the construction of a solid fence or wall adjacent to a residential zone; however, no masonry wall was required, and, therefore, unless the Commissio;~ specifically waived the wall requiren~ent, it would be necessary for the petitioner to cor:struct a soli~i fence or wall on the north and east property lines. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to a time limitation for the use of the existing structures, and it was determined a maximum of two years should be indicated~ whereupon the existing structures should be removed and adequate, new church facilitias should then be constructed. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1891, Series 1965-66, and moved for its ~assage and adopt~on, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 795, permitting use of the existing structures for a period of two years, and further subjec~ r.o conditionrs. (See Resolution Book.) On roIl call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISS].ONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. PJOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. MINUTES, CITY FLANNING COMMISSION, January 3, 1966 2877 t. ~.-~e`+2~ i~ , ,~` , I ~ f; p ~ -. ~}~ ~i . ~y ~~ TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: COVINGTON BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 841 North Harbor TRACT N0. 6147 Boulevard, Anaheim, Colifornia. ENGINEER: Lander Engineering Company, 1782 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject tract is located east of Acacia Street between Oran9ethorpe Avenue and the Riverside Freeway on the south side of Benmore Lane and containiny approximately S/10`s of an acre and is proposed for subdivision into 5 R-3, MULTIPLE-FNMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONED lots. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented Tentative Map of Tract No. 6127 to the Commission noting the location of subject property and indicating that subject tract was a re-subdivision of Lot Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of Tract No. 5268, recorded by the Orange County Recorder March 30, 1964, and that all conditions of approval had been complied with at the time Tract No. 5268 was recorded, therefore, no conditions had been recommended by the Staff for subject tract. Commissioner ~amp offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6127, Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDe VARIANCE N0. 1753 - PUBLIC FIEARING. BUENA VISTA CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL, 1b82 Buena Vista Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; PAUL E. TAYIAR, 718 West 6th Street, San Pedro, California, Agent; reques;.ing permission to WAIVE: (1) PJUMBtR OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, AND (2) LOCATION OF FREE-STANDING SIGN on property descsibed as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land situated at the southeast corner of Euclid Sireet and Buena Vista Street, and having frontages of approximately 170 feet on Euclid 5treet and approximately 141 feet on Buena Vista Street, and further described as 1444 South EucFid Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Mr. Pau1 Taylor, representing the Rich Sign and Neon Company, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and revieWed the existing location of the sign and the necessity for a newer and larger sign which would act as a guide to the convalescent hospital, which would be lit and be located in the future center of the hospital property at the time the parcel to the south was developed for the expansion of the existing hospital. Mr. Taylor,.responding to Commission questioning, stated that since doctors' and dentists' offices occupied the medical building, it would not be ethical to have a combined sign of all the u;es on the property; therefore, it was necessary to have a separate sign at the proposed location. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. T'r1E HEARING WAS CLOSED. Office.Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that if subject petition were approved, an additional condition requiring that adequate clearance of existing electricai signs should be provided as required by the Electrical Division, Department of Public Utilities andthe State of California, G.O. 95. Mr. Taylor the.^, stated this would be one oi the requirements they would comply with, regardless of whether it was a part of the conditions of approval. It was noted by ti~e Commi~sion the propn,ed request was correcting one violation of the existing Sign Urd;<<~r.ce, and that the existing sign had been coristructed prior to estab- lishment of the S_ ~i)rdinance. Commissioner Herbst :"_ered Resolution No. 1892, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoptian, secon~~ed by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1753, subject to condiCicns. (See Resolution Aook.) On roll caii the foregning resolution was passed by the rollowing vote: AYES: COMDAISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIUNERS: None. F MINUTcS} CITY PLANNING COMMISS:ON, January 3, 1966 ~ 2878 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. DEIMAR JACKiON AND DOYLE HILL, 322~ South Euclid Sts•eet, PERMIT ~be 7q7 Anaheim, California, Own~rs; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A RESTAURANT WITH WAIVERS OF: (1) MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK AND (2) MINIMUM REQUIRED LANDSCAPING on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel lying nortnerly and westerly of a parcel (approximately 100 feet by 142 feet) situated at the northwest corner of East Street and Kenwood Avenue, subjeet property having frontages of approximately 103 feet on the north side of Kenwood Avenu~ ~tsd approximately 126 feet on the west side of East Street. Property presently classified~M=1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE and P-L, PARKING-LANDSCAPING, ZONE. Mr. Delmar Jackson, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed restaurant and the location of subject property, noting that the Orange County Flood ~ontrol channel bounded subject property to the west and no development could occur to the north because of the existing freeway off-ramp. '~ t~ f1~ A r< 1~l ~ ~; ~ A~, ~~. L n:~ ~~- l~ . Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1893, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 797, together with waiver of the required buiiding setback and landscaping of the P-L Zone, based on the fact that subject property has the flood control channel to the west, the Riverside Freeway off-ramp to the north, and a service station to the south, and conditions~ (See Resolution book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: COI~7MISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. CONGITI~NAL USE - PUBLI~ HEARINGe WILLIAM AND MARGARET SANGSTER and LONNIE AND MARY DUNN, P~ttMIT NQ~ i98 2415 South Manchester Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A COFFEE SFiOP WITH WAIVERS OF: (li MINIMUM REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK AND (2) MINIMUM RE(~UIRED LANDSCA°ING on property described as: An "L" shaped parcei of land with a frontage of approxim~tely 100 feet on the easi. side of State College Boulevard and a maximum depth of approximately 250 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being approximately 180 ieet south of the centerline of Orangewood Avenuea Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE and P-L, PARKING-LANDSCAPING, ZONE. Mr. William Sangster, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission, stating he was available to answer questions. The Comrr~ission inquired of the petitioner why compliance with the setback requirements of the P-L and M-1 Zones was ;~ot done since ade-~uate property and space were available to provide for the 50-foot structure setback. Mr. Sangster stated it was hoped to have the landscaping alorg State College 8oulevard rather than a combination of parking and landscaping and to have the structure set back so that it would not he hidden from view from the proposed service station to the north of subject property; i:hat he was the owner of the property immediately to the south, and it was anticipated to develop that property for industrial purposes, compiying with all the requirements of the M-1 Zone. The Commission was of the opinion that to permit waiver of the building setback and land- scaping provisions of the M-1 Zone would set a precedent for similar requests i~ the industrial zo~~es and would be a breakdown of this requirement; that the petitioner had not indicated a hardship, and the variance waiver would be because a hardship existed; that other restaurants in the M-1 Zone were required to set back 5~ feet and to provide 2% landscaping in the parking area; that service stations in the industrial zone were required to have a buiiding sett,ack of 50 feet; and that the petitioner should comply with a11 requirements of the M-1 Zone if he desired to develop a re~taurant in said zone. Mr. John Knutzen, 801 Ken Way, owner of 22 acres easterly of subject property, appeared before :he Commission and noted that at suci, time as he planned to develop his property the existir.g pump would be removed, and inquired whether or not he could develop a restaurant or hotel in a similar manner as the petitioner was requesting. The Commission informed Mr. Knutzen a restaurant was a permitted use in the td-1 Zone through the filing of a conditional use permit, pr~vidpd, however, that all requirements of the M-1 Zone we:~ complied with, and that a hotel was not a permitted use in the M-1 Zone. .~x i ~~ ; MINUTES,. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 3, 19E~6 2879 .w_s~ ~ .i "~ ~ ' ~, ,I CUNAIT?ONAL USE - Mro S. Melugin, 35751 &each Roar3, Capistrano Beach, owner o~ property at PERMIT NU. 798 2025 East Orangewood Avenue, appeared be`ore the Commission and stated (Continued) he was intending to construct an additional warehouse on his property; however, at the time he had inquired relative to the original warehouse, he was told the setback requireme~t on Orangewood Avenue was 50 feet and would oppose subject petition if the waiver of the building setback and landscaping was permitted by the Commission. A petition signed by 14 property owners was received approving subject petition. THE HEARING WRS CLOSEDe Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1894, Series 1965-b6, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 798 for the establishment of a coffee shop or,1y, and denial of the waivers of the minimum required building setback and minimum required landscaping, and that the petitioner would be required to develop in accordance with tt~e 50-foot landscaped setback in the M-1, Light Industrial, Zone, and subject to conditior.s. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COb1MISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungallo NOES : COiuIMISS IONERS : None e ABSENT: CON,MISSIONERS: None. CONDITIONAL USE - PUALIC HEARING. Y.ARRY AND LILLIAN St{AM, 132G Ridgeview Terrace, Fullerton, PERMIT N0~ 799 California, Owners; DAVID D. WEBSTER, 620 South Marjan Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTARLISH A WALK-UP RESTAURANT WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIP.ED PARKING SPACES on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcei of land with a fiont3ge of approximately 75 feet on the east side of East Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet, ~he southern boundary of subject property being approximately 275 feet north of the centerline of Linco2n Avenue, and further described as 120 Nort,h East Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL. ZONE. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that upon reviewing subject petition at the time the Report to the Commissinn was prepared, it was noted the petitioner had pro- posed location of the buildirg and parking in compliance with the ?3•foot half width for East Street which was the projected width for East Street on the Circulation Element of the General P1a~: which has now been amended to a q5-foot half width, and recommended that the Commission continue subject petition for two weeks in order that the petitioner might have time to submit revised plans incorporating the 45-foot half width far East Street. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue the hearing of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 799 to the meeting of January 17, 1966, in order to allow the petitioner time to submit reuised development plans. Commissioner Cartip seconded the motiono MUTiON CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATIOtJ - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSIGN, 204 East N0. 65-66-68 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; Walter Ward, et al, 2019 East Center Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; propos'ng that propert~ described as: An irrequLaily shaped parcel of land situated at the northeast corner of Lincolr. Avenue and ~:~+.e College Boulevard and having frontages of approxin~ately 110 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 165 feet on State College Boulevard, be reclassified from the R-A, ;~GHICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, to establish an existing service statie~n and similar comrnercial uses as conforming uses in their niost appropriate zone. Zonin9 Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that subject petition and subsequent i reclassification petitiona scheduled for the hearing of this date .were part of the City•-wide I,, reclassification proceedings to place properties that had been developed in their must appro- . priate zones, ,t , ,~0- No one appeared in opposition to subject petitaono ~~ ; THE HEARFNG WAS CLOSED. ~~ Commission~r Gau?r offered Resolution No. 1895, Series 1965-66, and moved for its p~ysage and ~'~ adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for ~! ' R~cla.=.~~ification No. 65-6b-68 be approved, unconditionally. (See Resolution Book.) f~~ ~~ Gn roll call the foregoing resolution was passe~ by the following vote: ~1 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall~ ~l NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. 3' ABSENT: CO.MMi5SI0NERS: None. _. ~ MINUI'ES,,CITY ALANNING COMMISSION, January 3, 1966 2580 RE~LASSIFICATION - PU6LIC HEARING. INITIA7£D BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East N0. b5-66-69 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; C. Griffith, 1531 East La Palma Avenue, #fA-3, Anaheim, California, Owner; proposing that property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land situated at the southwest corner.of S~tate College Boulevard and La Palma Avenue, and having frontages of approximately 147 feet on State College Boulevard and approximately 150 feet on La Palma Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, to establish an existing service station as a conforming use in the most appropriate zone. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the existing service station was established under Conditional Use Permit N.;, 262 in the R-A Zone. ~ No or.e appeared in opposition to subject petitiono THE HcARING YJAS CLOSED. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1896, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend ;:o the City CounciL that Petition for Reclassification Noo 65-66-69 be approved unconditionally. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolutie~ was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, ~dungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMM.ISSIONERS: None. RECLASSIFICATION - PllBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY TIiE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East N0. 65-66-70 Linccln Avenue, Anaheim, California; A. Wilmsen, 6105 Pentz Road, Paradise, California, Owner; proposing that property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land situated at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and State CoLlege Boulevard and having frontages of appro;cimately 14~ feet on La Palma Avenu and a e pproximately 147 feet on State College Boulevazd, be reclassifi d e from the C•-3 . HEAVY COMMERCIAL, 7ANE, deed restricted to a service station site only, to the C-1, GEIJERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, to establish an existing service station as a conforming use in the most appzopriate zone. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the e:cisiing service station was established in th~ C-3 Zone under i~eclassification No. 57-58-18 with the provision that the City of Anaheim deed restrictions be placed or~ the property, limiting the C•-3 uses to a service station site only. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer o°fered Resolution No~ 1897, Series 1965-66, and rtioved for its passage and adoption, seconded ty Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 65-66-70 be approved unconditionally. (See Resolution Book.) Un roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, ~auer, Herbst, Perry, Rowiand, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ; RECLASSIFICHTION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East ~ i N0, 65-66-71 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; Texaco, Incorporated, 3350 Wilshire ~1 i Boulevard, Los Hngeles, California, Owner; proposing that property described as: tin irregularly shaped parcel of land situated at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue ` ' and State College Boulevard and having frontages of approximately 274 feet on La Palma Avenue ~~ ~ and approximately 150 feet on State College Boulevard, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, to establish a service station as a conforming use R in the most appropriate zone, and to reclassify the balance of the prope*ty to the C-1 Zone. I~ ~• Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson rE:~iewed the previous zoning action on subject property, :; ~ noting that the service station had been granted under Conditional Use Permit Na. 369 - however s~ the Reclassification No. 62-63-71, which was filed in conjunction with the conditional use permit '~ to establish C-1, General Commercial, Zoning on the entire property had been denied by the ~' , Commis~i.nr and Council based on the fact that no development plans for the westerly 108.66 feet had been submitted; howeve.r, the entire property had been advertised for C-1 Zoning in order to i-i ~* 91ve the Planning Commission the greatest amount of flexibility if they felt that comrt:ercial .~ R, zoning should be consi.dered appropriate at this time. If the Commission felt Z-1 Zoning was ;, 'I ; E f ~ __ ~ . A1INl?TES, Cyly pLqNNING COMMISSION Januar +' k j ` RECLASSI('*~ ~ Y 3~ 1966 ~ ~ ~• 65-66j~iTION 2881 - not desirable, the legal description of the 'f station could be the only portion to reco (Cantinued) Reclassification I~o, property for the service ~ • 65-66-71, ~end for appro~al under ~` ~o one appEared in o ~ Aposition to subject petition. ! ; THE :LARING Wqg CLOSED. ~ ~i~' Discussio~ was held b ~_ oped parcel to the westtof the~servicerstatio~ to property was su~h that closer scrutiny should establishing blanket zonin '' proper since its 9 on the undevel- bilit; of any co~ercial enterprises for that Proximity to the school ',,;;~ the petition for reclassification should inc~~ be 91ven by the City to dete ~I ~ Property; therefore T~lne the compati- ..'.~ ~ rporate onl ~ the legal descri.ption of Corrunissiorter Gauer offered Resolution No, o~ Y the service station site ~,. adoption, seconded b 1~>g PToPerty. ~ Reclassification No.Y C~~lssioner Ca;np, to recommend5to96he6Citand mcved for its unconditionall 65-66-71, encompassin Y Council P'assage and ; Y• (See Resolution Book.) 9 the Service station site onl that Petition for ~ PProved ~ On roll call the foregoin Y~ be a ~ g resolution was ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Passed by the followin Allred 9 vote: ;I. NOES: COM1yISSIONERS: None. ' Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perr ABSENT: CpMMISSIONERS: Y~ Rowland, Mungall. None. '~,i RECI.ASSIFICATIAN ~'~~ 65-66-Z2 - pUBLIC HEARIIJG. INITIATED By Lincoln qvenue T~ ~ITY PLANNING CO c Company~ 1008 Wes{a6thmStreetf~rnia; Stafac I ~IS~ION, 2(lq East CONDITiGNgi, USE described a ~ ncorporated ~ PERlu1IT N~. gpp s~ An irregularl ~ L~S Angeles, California ' Shell Oil ~ southeast corner of La PalmaY shaped par~el of land situet dratPtheerty frontages op a Avenue and State College Bouievard with ~~ 138 feet PProximately 150 feet on La Palma Avenue and a i C-3, Y.EAVYnCO~ERCIqLlege Boulevard. Property presentl pproximately any C-1, GENLRAL ' Z~NE, deed restricted to a Y classified pROPOSED CLASSIFICATION: ~~ERCIAL, ZONE use. Service station or ! ~'1, GENERAL COAM7ERCIAL PROPUSED CONDITIONAL USE: ~ ~ ZONE. ~I T~ pERMIT AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION WITHIN i 75 FEET OF A RESIDENTIqL ZONE. ~ was aporoved for C- i Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the e:.istin ~ approval af 3 Zoning under Reclassification No. 61-62-36; however a ;; the reclassification was 9 service station question, limiting the uses to a the filing of deed restrictions o~ ` ~ondition of service station or any C-1, General Commercia No one a he Property in ~~ ppeared in opposition to subject eti ' 1+ Zone use. ~~ THE HEARING WqS CLOSED. p tlons, ,~ f-~ Commissiorer Herbst offered adoption, secor.ded ~ Resolution No. 1899, Series 1965-66, and moved for i Reclassification No,Y Commissioner Perry, to recommend ; `~"66-~2 be a to the City Council that ts passage and , PFroved unconditionally. (See Resolution Book.) ;. On roll call Petiti.on for ,~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: CO,WulISSIONERS; Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst F ~ ABSE:tJT: COMMISSIONERS; None. ~ erry, Rowland, Mungall. ~ None, ~ Commis;ioner Camp offered Resolution No. ! adoption, seconded by Commissiuner 1900, Series 1465-66, and moved for its ~~~~• 800,.unconditionally. (See Resolution Bookr)nt Petition for Conditional Use f~ Fass,3ge and On roll call the foregoin ermit 9 resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMIggj~NERS: NOES: COIAMISSIC)NERS; Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst P ABSF"'T: CO~dMISSIO None. ~ erry, Rowland, Mungall. NERS: None. . •_ ~~ ~r~ - F s S . MINUTES, CZIY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 3, 1966 2gg1 RECLASSIFICATION - not desirable, the legal description of the property for the service N0. 65-66-71 station could be thP only portion to recommend for approval under (Continued) Reclassification No. 65-66-71. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARIVG WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to establishing blanket zonin•3 on the undevel- oped parcel to the west of the service station proper since its proximity to the school property was such that closer scrutiny should be given by the City to determine the comoati- bility of any commercial enterprises for that property; therefore, the legal descri.ption of the petition for reclassification should incorporate only the s?rvice station site property. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1898, Series 1955-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 65-66-71, encompassing the service statiun site only, be approved unconditionally. (See Resolution Book.) On roll cal). the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: COlAMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. RECLASSIFICATIAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East N0. 65-66-72 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Califo~nia; Stafac, Incorporated, Shell Oil Company~ 1008 West 6th Street, Los Angeles, California, Owaer; property CONDITIONAL USE described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land situated at the PERMIT Nn. 800 southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and State College Boulevard with frontages of approximately 150 feet on La Palma Avenue and approximately 138 feet on State College Boulevard. Property presently r.lassified C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE, deed restricted to a service station or any C-1, GENERAL CAMMERCIAL, ZONE use. PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. PROP(~SED CONDII'IONAL USE: TO PERMiT AN EXISTING SFRVICE STATION WITHIN 75 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONE. Zoni~g Supervisor Ron,ald Thompson advised the Commission that the existing service station was approved for C-3 Zoning under Reclassification No. 61-62-36; however;. a condition of approval af the reclassification was the filing of deed restrictions on che property in question, limiting the uses to a service station or any C-1, General Commercial, Zone use. ~o one appearec'. in opposition ~o subject petitionso THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 1899, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 65-66-72 be approved unconditionally. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungalle NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissi.oner Camp offered Resolution No. 1900, Serie~s 1965-66, and moved for its passage and adoptiun, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit P;o. SOO, unconditionally. (See Reso~ution Book.) ".~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was p~ssed by the following vote: AYES: COMM1a5I0NERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Perry, Rowland, Mungall. ~`~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~, ABSEVT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ~ ~ MTNUTES, CITY PLANI4ING COMMISSION, January 3, 1966 2882 REPORTS AND ~ ITFM NG. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Uran~3e County Planning Commission consideration nf tF•.~ precise alignment of La Palma Avenue between the Anaheim City limits on the ~aast and Imperial Highway, building setback policy consideration. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the Orange County Planning Commission was considering the precise alignment of La Palma Avenue from the easterly Anaheim City limits to Imperial Highway on January 5, 1966. Mr. Thompson further stated that upon reviewing the County of Orange Industrial Zones, it was noted that site development standards were only incorporated in their M-R, Manvfact~ring- Research, Zone; that in order to have uniformity of any future development in the Nartheast Ir.dustrial Area under the County's jurisdiction in regard to building setbacks, the Commission might wish to recormnend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to consider the adoption of building setback policy along La Palma Avenue 103 feet (53 feet street half width plus 50 feet for building setback) from the centerline of precise alignment of La Palma qvenue, so that any future development for said street might be i~ conformance with the site development standards of the City of Anaheim`s Industrial Zones, prior to any possible an.~exation of properties now under the jurisdiction of the County in the Northeast Indust:ial Area. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recortur,end to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission at their public hearing in considering the precise alignment of La Palma Avenue easterly of the present Anaheim City linits, establish a setback policy for any future development in the Northeast Industrial ;,rea, by requiring that all buildings be sei back 103 feet irom the uitimate centerline of La Palma Avenua. Commissioner Gauer secondea the motiona MOTION CABRIED. IT_M N0. 2 Ur~ange Cuunty Use Variance No, 5666 - Proposing to establish an automobile leasing agency office in an existing residence zoned R-P, Residence Professional, Zone; property l.ocated 750 feet nor~h of L?ncoln Avenue on the west side of Brookhurst Street. ~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald "fhomp.on presented Orange County Use Variance No. 5666 to.the Corunission noting the location of sabject property and the proposed use. It was also noted that the Orange County Planning Departmen± had been contacted for clarification of the pro- posed use, the staff being informed that the residence would be used for the necessary leasing paper work; that no temporary or permanent storage of automobiles was proposed; that nine parking spaces existed on the property, which equals or exceeds the City of Anaheim's parking requirements for office use, however, three of the parking spaces were located in the norm~.i front setback area which eliminated practicaily all of the front landscapiay and deviated from the City`s policy for establishing parking to the rear of the residence; and that automouile leasing was only permitted in the City's C-3 Zone; however, if the leasing agency was restricted to office use only, no car storage permit;:ed, this would be an appropriate C-1 or C-0 Zone use. Office Eng.ineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that there was a possibility ehat the property did not provide for the dedication for the ultimate street widening of 6rookhurst Street, and the Commission might wish to urge the County to require the dedication of that portion of the prooerty for ultimate street widening purposes. Discussion was held by the Commission, and upon its conclusion it was determined that the proposed use would be comparable with the existing use presently established on the property along Broakhurst Street in this area, however, dedication should be acquired for the ultimate widening of Brookhurst Street to 120 fee•,. Commissioner Rowland offered a mo~.ion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to reyuire :.;:y dedication needed for the ultimate widening of Brookhurst Street to its 60-foot half width in their consideration of arange County Use Variance No. 5666. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. R[CESS - Commissioner Camp offered j motion to recess the meeting to 7:00 P.M. Commissioner F~llred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 2:55 P.M. RE~IdVEt~E - Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 7:00 P.M., all wmmissioners being present witt~ the exception of Commissioner Camp. P MINUTES, CITY PLANVING COMMISSION, Janua;-y 3, 1966 2883 HILL AND CANYUN - PUBLIC HEARING, INITI.4TED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ GENERAL. PLAN _ 204 East I.i~coln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to consider the adoption of a General Pian for the area under the ~urisdiction of the Cities of Anaheim and Orange, and thp County of Orange territory contiguous to Anaheim, bounded on the west by the Newport Freeway, on the r~orttt by the Santa Ana River, on the south by Villa Park and Santiago Canyon Roads, and on the east by Weir and Gypsum , Canyon Roadso Planning Superviso: Ronald Grudzinski reviewed for the Planning Commission and interested persons presen2 5ection 55300, Section 65301, and Section 65302 of the State of Czlifornia _ Planning Act and Zoning Code, in which autho:izatior. for the preparation of General Plan ,TM~~ is given; and ~•ection 6535i *egulat?ng the method of advertising and the holding of publi~ ~i hearings fo~ s~id General Plan. ~. ~ , ~~ Mr. Grudzinski nuted that because oi the potential expansion of the City, the Urange County ~" Plannin9 Commission agreed that the City of Anaheim Development Services. Planning staff ~ I should P ~ ~ 9 i. prepare ?he plan covering oroperty in the unincor o*.~ed area• that oint meetin = fi were held between the Anaheim Planning Com;nission and the Grange County Planning Commission ;~ during the prepa=aticn of the p:an *o incoroorate ideas of the iwo Commissions into tne ;; _ Plan; and that the P1an had been submitted to the City of Orange and County Planning Commis- ~ sions upon its technical completion, said bodies having presanted no opposition to the pro- ~) posed Plan being considered at this hearir.g. >.~ The scope of the "lan w~s also reviewed. Mr. ~rudzinski noted that the planning area was primarily hilly iand, with some areas having a more gentle s:cpe;that a prominent mountain range acted as a n~tural divider of the planning area into two po;tions, the northerly portion or twn~:hir.ds whic.h drains towa=d ±he Santa Ana River and could be served with utilities by the City of A^o~~im ~nd might be annexed at some future date by the City of Anaheim; that the ~aiance oi the pianning area, located southeriy oi this range could best be served hv the communities to ~he south, and that t4e drainage of the area made it a natural li~ie ;or possible separaticn at a future date for annexatzor pu*poses; ~nd that because of the tovog-r~phy a new coccep*_ in p;anning was necessary cir.ce most previous plans encompassed flat .ar,d, whereas in tris plaer,ing area it CGUI'.~ (:CY. jJE p_ojected with the ~ same density for _•e=~ac-+fa; develo~R.er,t because of t.he topography Mr. Grudzinski then leviewed the bas:c policies ard propos3is oi the ~'lan, noting that the ' General Plan w;s the framewo=k for f~ture deve!ooment of the communitv, and was of great ~ assistance to t.he Ci.ty Councii and Piar.r.inq Cemmissian or ior.g range development policies, . land use des~gnyt:on. for use by the Pub!ic Works Department for utiiities projects in the serving o.' public ~~~ Griv~te develcpment, and that i*_ would be of considerable assistance to public aqencies and c-`_~••ate prope~ty owners fo; dFVeiop:~ent of iong range projects as well as immediate o:ciects The principa: Fo:icy underlying the P:an, ~1= Grudzinsk; s:atee, wa= the ne;essiiy for maintaining a bai~nce oetweer. peopie and community faciiit~es exp~essed in roads, schools, parks, f:re stations, libraries. shopqing ce~ters, and utilities; tha! the 'lan was "i~ balance" when the populatior. was being serv ~ adequateiy by these faciiities; that the major problem of the Plan was based on sever rommunity areas with number of dwelling units, population, scnools, parks, and shoppir~g area depicted for each; tt;at the p:obably area for the City of Anaheim projected 2i,720 dwelling units, 80,G00 populatior, a new conce;~t of elementary schoels known as "sateliite schools" for the K-3 grades which would serve the a:ea with schools for s,nall children within waiking distance of their homes, and a total cf 18 was projected; K-6 elementary schools - 14; 6 junior higt~ schouls; 3 senior high schools; 80,2 acres for comn:u~iity parks; and 18 shoppin~ centerse The Circulation Element and access roads to the Santa Ana Caryon Road had er:en in~orporated into the Plan, Mr, Grudzi.nski stated; therefore, no additional map would have to be adopted, such as the Anaheim General Plan had. The open area of the ~'lan was then reviewed, it being noted that many green belts were proposed with riding and hiking trails pro;ected in close Nroximity to the public utilities easements undar the high tensian wires located throughout the Plan; that the Parks and Recrsation Department had decided to vary the design of the parks pro~ecting some nei9hbor- hood parks and others community parks; that the ratio was based on one acre per 1,000 popula- tior. with approximaiely 13-15 acres being projected per community park; and that an attempt was being made to joint]y deveiop jur,ior o; senior high schools and park fac_lities, so the citizens of the community would not have only the use of the oarksy but also additional open space !.n the urban developmeni oi the area, ~ . .1 t' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, Janua'ry 3, 1966 28g4 HILL AND CANYON GENERAL PLAN (Continued) r. .--,%~Ti~ ~~~ € ~1 {1 ~~ .+lx It was also noted by Mro Grudzinski that the slopeof the land determined the density of development of the hilly residential area and was depicted on Page 16 of the Plan; that the assumption for the saturation for the area would be made in•terms of the total develop- ment picture; that the comparison could not be made for density for the existing R-1 Zone which was based on the use of flat land and projected 5.8 dwelli~ng units per net residen- tial acre - therefore, new zones were being written for the Hill and Canyon area; and that the Peralta Hills area had one-acre sites whereas the Villa Park area had one-half-acre sites, and this iype of development was being encouraged for the F!ill and Canyon area. ~ A word of caution was expressed by Mr. ~rudzinski when he stated that any change in the projections as depicted on the Alan being considered by the Commission would necessitate yhis refiection in the capacities for various facilities, both public and private, since current figures were based on the dwelling unit factor as projected on Page 16, and that these ;igures included changes made upon completion of ~he first portion of the R-1 on the Nohl ranch easterly of the Newport Freeway because evidence indicated a heavier density might be achieved with development in accord~nce with those plans. Th~ commercial areas proposal was then reviewed in the Plan which indicated that because of low density residential characteristics, small neighborhood shoppin9 centers were located closer to the customer with one community shopping center proposed to be located in the general vicinity of the intersection of Imperial Highway and Santa An~ Canyon Road, which could serve 10,000 to 30,000 families. The exact locations of these neighborhood shoppin9 facilities was not indicated -- all that was indicated was the generalized need in an area. Since the ~range Unified School' District had sole jurisdiction for the provision of school facilities, Mr. Grudzinski stated. the staff had maintained close communication with the school district representatives during the preparing of the Plan, and the Plan thus reflected their desires for various school projections~ Parks, areas for recreation~ and open space was also reviewed by Mr~ Grudzinski - the number of acres for these facilities was based on one acre per 1,000 population; that regional and sub-regior.al parks were proposed in conjunction with the Orange County Regional Parks System; that riding and hiking trails were indicated ~,hich traversed the planning area and linked with other park facilities in the County; tiowever, no specific plans were available for development of areas for recreational purposes, but developers could use these general locations as part of their overall plans~ Library facilities were discussed with projections for one library per 50,000 population, and the site was indicated adjacent to a community shopping cente: at In;perial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road. Fire stations were located at two mile running distance with five stations projected in the planning area, together with two other stations withi~~ one-'t'~~if niie cr the F:'.;.r.ing ~rea. 'Ihe objectives and policies for providing adeouate circulation projected a system of traffic- ways which was related to the ultimate need for moving people and goods. The key factor, Mr. Grudzinski stated, in the "baiance~ of the +'lan was the highway system, Classes of highways were based on the expected traffic volumes with collector and seconcary arterial highways, as depicted on the Plan, and were designed during meetings between the City Traffic Engineer, the Orange County Traffic Engineer, and the Nohl Ranch engineers, and represented the minimal circulation; however, if anything less thar, these projections was proposed, it would not serve the projected population. Furthermore, standards fox the various types of ioads had been reduced be:ause of the topography. It was also noted that because of this reduction in the width of the roads, it might be necessary to limit on- street parking, but provide parking bays at iniervals for emergency parking, The locations of the streets ~ere not precise, but were indicated as being generally in this vicinity, and river cross?nqs over the Sa~ta Ana River were proposed - three of these crossings had been a part of the City's policy ior some time. Mr. Grudzinski further stated that he would like to make two minor corzections to Page 33; namely, that since the printing of the Plan which had occurred several months ago, the staff had begun.preparing a series of Residential-Hillside Zones which would accommodate lots of 10,000, 20,000, and 40,000 square feet, together with a Commercial Hillside Zone which would orovide for the smail convenience shopping centers. Mr. Grudzinski concluded his remarks by stating that the Hill and Canyon General Plan could be an effective tool when used to guide community development. The Plan had no power in itself - however, it relied upon well- conceived orograms and sound administration for its effectiveness. The General Plan is not the end, but represented the beginning of an intelligent planning program, MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING CO~~,~SSION, January 3, 1966 " 2885 HILL AND CANYGN GENERAL PLAN _(Contznued Office Engineer Athur Daw advised the Co~nission that in reference to Hage 30, when secondary highways were developed, if access was to be made from secondary highways, on-street parking would be desired; furthermore, when indivudual petitions were considered by the City, the Corunission might wish to give consideration to requiring that adequate off-street parking be provided in lieu of additional street dedication. Mre William Lusk, representing the Lusk Corporation and the Nohl Ranch interests of which considerable property was encompassed in the Flan, appeared before the Commission and compli- mented the staff for an excellent General Plan; however, there were several facets of the Plan on which he made additional comment: the Plan projected 2.5 dwelling units per residen- tial acre only with single-family homes, and if this assumption were carried out for inclusion in the population growth, then the p:ojections they had made for some of the =reas on the Nohl Ranch would be incorrect since their projections indicated some areas could be developed for three units per residential acre, although he was not desirous of requesting a blanket three units; that their projections were for future years and recommended that the Utilities Division design ~heir facilities to acr,ommodate three units per acre to provide for more flexibility if it was determined that certain areas could be developed at a higher density; and that the three units per acre should be considered the maximum permitted - however, he would like to discuss this further with Mr. Grudzinski. The Co:wnission advised Mr. Lusk that the ~lan was a guide and was subject to amendment if, at a later date, it was proven that the change was logical, Mr. Lusk then continued that ne was somewhat concerned re9arding the Parks and Recreation Depart~ent plan for common r.iding and hiking trails, since at th4s time, it was the Nohl Ranch plan to have the Nohl Ranr.h traii system owned and maintained by the homeowners associa- tion cover~~g app~oximately 20 miles of riding trails, and if the Park and Recreation Depart- ment were ultimately plannin9 to connect public trails with these private trails, some other methods would be necessary to maintain these private trails, and decision on tha method should not be held up to some undetermined future date~ h1r~ Lusk also indi.cated that the N~hl Fanch people were also in the process of developing recreation centers including swimming pool.s within private areas and wondered whether these recreation centers could be considered as part of the community park areas~ Commissione= Gauer stated thai recreational facilities could not be based on the number of tennis courts a,~d swimming pools, but on the type of facilities which would be serving the 9eneral puhlic, together with the number of persons utilizing these facilities. Water Division Superintendent .~us I.enain, in response to Commission questioning regarding the cost per acre of serving wate:, deferred to Mr. Daw since the Engineering ~eFartn•:ent was in the process of preparing design studies for the Peralta Hills area. Mr. Daw advised the Commission that costs per acre on fiat 1and, of which the City was primarily, was i~ the vicinity of $350-$400 per acre, whereas the recent design studies made of the Peralta Hills area indicated a cost between $650-$700 per acre; that cost of street construction would also be greater due to grade, fill, cut, and soil tests; that the City assumed the cost of the center 24 feet of a street and the developer assumed the cost of the balance of the width oi the street, together with the cost of curb and gutters. Mr. Lenain informed the Commission that the:e was plenty water available, and when the new Walnut Canyon reservoir was cumpleied, an add_tional 30 million gallons of water would be available Nhich amount would serve approximately lE?,000 persons. In response to Commission concern relative to private trail riders crossing over public streets, Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that public easements would be necessary. Mr. Lusk then stated that it was tneir intent to depress the trails so that crossing would be below the street level; thus minimizing any interference with vehicular traffic and making it safer for the trail riders. Mrs. Mabel Yorba indicated her presence as an interested person, representing her neighbors, regarding the ~lan.. ` Commissioner Rowland moved that the nearing be closed. Commissioner Gauer seconded the I- motion. MOTION CARRIED. THE HEARI(vG WkS CLOSED. * ~ ~: E MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION, January 3, 1966 2ggf, HILL AND CANYON GENERAL PLAN__- .(Continued) D:scussion was held by the Commission relative to the comments made by Mr. Lusk~ ,i^-~ ~ ~~ I '.I i i ; ,~ Mr. Grudz~nski advised the Commission that if the Commission considered Mr. Lusk's request favorably,.this would mean an increase of well over 11,000 pe*sons who had to be served by the existing facilities, and from tentative figures it would seem that additional schools, parks, and other public facilities would be necessary; that the projections for the area would have to be completely re-evaiuated since cslculations were based on the assumption that the development would occur for low density development; and that during the prepara- tion of the Plan several tracts had been completed on the Nohl Ranch and from these figures it was determined that the original projections were less than the tract figures indicated; therefore projections for densities for the Plan were recalculated, and the figure presented at the hearing reflected this change from the original average 2.5 dwelling units to 2~7 dwelling units pe: net residential acre within the first stage of development~ However, since Mro Lusk had presented a different density, he would attempt to have additional data available for consideration by the City Council at their hearing, and at that time, if the City Councii favorably considered a heavier density, it would then be referred back to the Commission for further consideration, unless the Commission preferred to continue their public hearing in order to consider this additional data. Commissioner Rowland stated tnat the density figures were compiled after considerabl~e consideration was given to the topography, as well as the maintenance of one of the last areas ia the County of rolling, hilly land, and it was quite feasible that a heavier density could be acquired through cutting and fill, but this would greatly reduce the beauty and effectiveness of the area as it now was, and he would not approve anything heavier in density than an average 2.5 dwelling units per net residential acre as had been determined to be the best way to develop the Hill and Canyon area, after many work sessions by the Commission and two joint wo:k sessions with the ur3nge County Planning Commission, since he did not want the same thing to happen to the area as had happened in the hiils around Los Angeles, because of the care:essness in the cut and fill of the hills. Commissioner Gauer concurred in Commissioner Rowland's comments, further stating that the flood damages in the Los Angeles hills were enormous; that many buildings were sliding down the hills because of the erosion of these hills; that damages to these properties were not being paid by the developer, but the property owne*s~ and that, in his opinion, the Hi1: and Canyon area shouid be developed in a manner that will be safe for the residents presentLy residing there, as well as any future residents since more cutting and fill would ruin the area as potential and desirabie rural iiving area. Mro Lusk stated i.hat he had had oniy one failure in the Orange area, and considering the millions of feet of fill th~t they had used, this was remarkable; furtherrn~re, the City's engineers wnuld nnt permit any unsafe deveiopment of the filled land. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to adopt the Hill and Canyon General Pian and does declare that the Hill and Canyon General Plan consists of (1) a true and correct copy of the map showing that area lying east of the Newport Freeway, south of the Santa Ana River, north of Villa Park and Santiago Canyon Roads and west of Weir Canyon and Gypsum Canyon Roads, which map is entitled "The Hiil and Canyon General Plan" and which map i•s located in the Development Service= ~epartment as said map existed on January 3, 1966, the date of adoption of this resolution; ~2) the textual material included within the document entitled "The Hi1L and Canyon General Plan, Guide for Future Development, Anaheirt~, California, October, 1965"; and that in order that the document mi9ht be fully considered by the Orange County Planning Commission, tnat the City Council be urged to recommend approval of the Hill and Canyon General Plan~ (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the ioregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, ?erry, Rowland, Mungall. NOES: GO~J~A~ISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COM,ti1ISSI0NERS: Camo. Commissioner Perry stated that the staff should be commended for a fine presentation and preparation of the Hill and Canyon General Plan. ~ ' E _t , dINUTES, CI-TY PIAND}ING COMMISSION, January 3, 1966 ~"~ ~gg~ iOUTHERN CAL?FORNIA - Commissioners Allred, Herbst, Perry, Rowland and Mungall indicated 'LANNING C051GE3ESS they would attend the January meeting of the Southern Califarnia Planning Congress to be held at the "Castaway" in Burbank on January 13, 1966, this meeting being the last of the y~ar in which Commissioner Gauer would be serving as president. ~DJOURNMENT. - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Allred offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissione: Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 P,M. Respectfully submitted, . . ~L2/ ANN KREBSy Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ;:i - ~ ~~ ~ r h ! 1 E ,~ \ R ~Y