Minutes-PC 1966/05/09t ~
City Hall
Anaheim, California
~Yiay 9, 1966
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE AAlAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to
order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present.
PRESF.NT - CHAIRMAPI : Camp o
~ - COMMISSIOAJERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
' PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Directo*: Robert Mickelson
Zoning Supervisor: Ronald ?hompson
Planning Supervisor: Ronald Grudzinski
Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts
Office Engineer: Arthur Daw
Associate Planner: Jack Christofferson
; ~lanning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
IIJVOCATION - Reverend Harlen Roelofs, Anaheim Christian Refo rmed Church
ave
, the Invocation. , g
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Gauer led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF
THE MINUTES - The Minutes of the meeting of Apri1 25, 1966, were approved as submitteda
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CHARLIE N. BROCK, 3133 West Orange A~~enue,
N0~ 65-60-98 Anaheim, California, Owner; BEN CHEEK, JR., 4303 VJest 5th Street,
~ Santa Ana, California, Agent; re uestin that
,I TENTATIVE MAP OF An irre ularl sha ed q g Property described a,.:
9 y p parcel of land containing approximztely 3.15 acres,
TRACT N0. 6163 with a frontage of approximately 500 feet on the north side of the Carbon
; Cr~ek channel and having a maximum depth of approximately 271 feet, the
_ westerly boundary of subject prooerty being approximately 750 feet east
of the centerline of Western Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONc to the
I R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZUNE.
Subject tract - DEVELOPER: R. J~ BERR~, 4514 West 3rd Street, Santa Ana, Caii;ornia.
ENGINEER: Raab and Boyer Enyineering Company, 1731 South Euclid Street,
Suite "A", Anaheim, California; located northerly oi Urange Avenue and
easterly of Western P.venue, containing approx.imately 3.1 acres, is proposed
• for subdivision into 12 R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDEMIAL, ZONED lots.
Subiect petition was continued from the meetings of March 14, April 11 Gnd 25, 1966, and the
tentative tract map was continued from the meetings of February 16, March 14, April 11 and
25, 1966, in order to allow time for the developer to negnriate for the property to the east
with the County of Orange.
A letter was read to the Commission from the developer requesting an additional four weeks'
time to continue negotiations for the parcel of land to the east.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue ihe hearin9 of Petition for Reclassification
Plo. 65-66-98 and Tentative Map of Tract No~ 6163 to the meeting of June 6, 1966, as requested
by the petitioner. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. NpTION CARRIED.
CONDITIOIJAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CHiELL L. PHARRIS, 18151 Charter Road, Orange,
PERMIT 1J0. 826 California, Owner; requesting permission to EXCAVATE ANU REMUUE SAND AND
shaVed TO A DEPTH OF 75 FEET on property described as: A rectangularly
p parcel of land (containing approximately 24 acres) with a frontage
of approximately 1,670 feet on the east side of Miller Street and having a maximum depth of
approximately 640 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being approximately 180
feet south of the centerline of Oranqethorpe Avenue, and further described as 6722 Mille: Street.
Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Subject petition was coniinued from the meetings of April 11 and 25, 1966, to allow the peti-
tioner time to resolve problems and complete studies.
^1 „ ',~ A letter was read to the Commission from the petitioner requesting continuance of an additional
? ;j two weeks because of illness of the
~ ~ 4 petitioner.
~ Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue public hearing of Conditional Use Permit No. 826
'i to the meeting of May 23, 1966, as re uested b the
,~ ~ t:he moi:ion. MOTION CARRIED. Q y Petitioner. Commissioner Herbst seconded
~ ~ ~' 3024
c
r
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 9, 1966 3025
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. EI)NARD J. FIORELLA, 1301 Brittany Cross Road,
PERMIT N0. 831 Santa Ana, California, Owner; Pt{IL PISCIOTTA, 1835 East Pacific Coast
Highway, Long Beach, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH
A DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM FRONT SETBACKS,
(2) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, (3) MINIMUM REQUIRED LANDSCP.PI~G, AND (4) 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL
ABUTTING A RESIDENTIAL ZOt4E on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land
~ si±uated at the northwest corner of State College Boulevard and Center Street and having
' `rontages of approximately 102 feet on State College Boulevard and approximately 88 feet on
Center Streeto Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
` Subject petition was continued from the meetings of April 11 and 25, 1966, in order to allov+
{~ the petitioner time to submit revised ~lans eliminating some of the requested waivers as
q suggested by the staff~
Mr. Phil Pisciotta, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed
~ the proposed drive-through restaurant, noting that waivers vaere requested for the required
~+-foot masonry wa11 adjacent to the west property line since there already existed a 5-fc~t
masonry wall, and the use there was commercial in nature; furthermore, the Naiver of the
height adjacent to said west property line was also based on the fact that si~bject property
was zoned R-A, ard i` vras commercial in nature also.
` Thp Commission noted it would be tlie petitioner's obligation to contact the State for an
encroachment permit.
Nc one ~peeared in opposition io subject petition.
~ THE HE.ARIiJG UJAS CUJSED.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the reque,t ior waiver of the block wall
and the height waiver, and whether or not thp rest home could be considered a commercial use,
which in tu*n would not necessitate requiring o masonry wa11,
Cor.~~nissioner P.11red offered Resolution No. 2022, Series 1965-06, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
tJo. 831, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Booh.)
;: On ro11 call ihe ;oregoing resolution wos passed by the iollowing vote:
y_ , AYE5: CU~Wu1ISSI0NERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
~lOES: COPrJ~1ISSI0iJERS: i4one.
ABSENT: CO~~L^~1ISSIONEkS: PJone.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARIi1G. P,ICKARD E. USTROOT, 506 ~ast Eliz~beth Drive, Orange,
PERMIT PIO. 839 California, Owner; L. D. SHAiJK, 123ll Chapman Avenue, Suite 104, Garden
Grove, Californi~, Ngent; requesting permission to ESTP.i3LISH Ail NUTGIJ~GBILE
SEkVICE STATIUPJ UJTTHIIJ 75 FctT GF P. SIWGLE-FAIv1ILY RcSIDEiJTIkL ~GiJE AIJU A1
THE liJTERSECTIOPJ OF A PRI6IARY STRE'tT FidD A. CULLECTUR SI'REET on property described as: An
irregui.irly shaped parcel of lard situated ~t tne northeast corner oi 'r'all Road and :Jutwood
Street and having frontaaes of appreximately 150 :eet on 6a11 Road and approx.imately 1~5 ieet
on ivutwood S~reet, and :urther descriped as 1885 West. Ball Road. Property presently classi-
fied C-1, GEIJERAL. C~M~~7ERCIAL, ZODJc (deed restricted to business and professional uses only).
i'he agent for the petitioner indicated his presence to answer questions.
~or~ing Supervisor ponald Thompson adviseu tt~e Co;nmission thot public. hearing to censider the
possioility of removal of deed restrictiot~s would be considered by tlle Commission on May 23,
anri that the petitioner i~~ad advised tne staif it would be less confusing to request continuance
of subject petition until that hearingo
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue public hearing of Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 839 to tha meetinq of May 23. 1966, in order ih~t it miyht be considered in conjunc-
tio;~ with public hearing reyarding the removal of deea restrictions on subject property.
Commissioner hSungail seconded the motion~ MOTIOIJ CARRIED.
,j .
~ ~R
'~~ i
~
i ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMh1ISSI0N, May 9, 1966,
3026
' CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEAkING. RALPH PETRENY, 1050 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim,
PERMIT N0. 840 California, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A RESTAURANT WITH
ON-SALE LIQUOR IN AN EXISTING BUILDING on property described as: An "L"
shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 200 feet on the
souih side of Katella Avenue and having a maximum deptt: of approximately 600 feet, the
western boundary of subject property being approximately 190 feet east of the centerline
of West Street, and further described as 1050 West Katella Avenue. Property presently
classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
, Mro John Nelson, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he
was available to answer questions.
. ~ In response to Commission questioning, Mr. Nelson stated there would be a 10-foot separation
';j'~ between the existing coffee shop in the proposed restaurant.
The Commission reviewed the location of the service bars in respect to their
(~ ~ the dining area~ proximity to
I
Mr~ Steven Pavlovich, manager of the Pixie Motel, appeared before the Commission in o
~ tion and stated there was insufficient business to pposi-
each other; that the Alcoholic Beverage Control BoardrrequiredcacdistanceUOfe600dfeetnseparat-
:.~ ' ing a;chool or a playground from an on-sale liquor establishment.
Mr> Nelson, in rebuttal, stated the petitioner had discussed the possibility of establishing
" the cocktail lounge on subject property with the school officials and had been informed the
;~ school did not feel there was zny problem regarding the proposec; establishmen±,
$
The Commission advised the opposition that any rulings of the A.B.C. did not affect the
Commission's decision on land use, and a license would be issued by the A.B.C~ only if they
'I so desired.
i 1'HE HEARING WAS CIASED.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 2023, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition fcr Conditional Use Permit
No. 840, suhject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: tJone.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
VARIANCE N0~ 1791 - PUBLIC HEARING. KURT D. SINGER, Box 3658, Fullerton, California, Owner:
WILLIAM P. WEgg, 106 North Claudina, Suite 407, An~heim, California,
Agent; requesting permission to ESTAIILISH A WRITER'S PROFESSIONAL OFFICE
~ IN A SINGLE-FAMILY RF.SIDENTIAL ZONE on propPrty described as: An irre9ularly shaped parcel
E of land with a fronta9e of approximatel;~ 63 feet on the south side ef Tyler Avenue and having
1 j.; a maximum depth of approximately 115 feet, the western boundary of subject A
~ I.; approximately 286 feet east of the centerline of Western Avenue, and furtheprdescribedlas
3164 West Tyler Avenue. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAt~1ILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 2:27 p,M.
~ Mr. W. P. Webb, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the
~ ~ proposed use of sub'act
of the home; that no additionalytrafficawouldtberincurredbwith thenge in the outer appearance
~' property; that the petitioner was proposed use of subject
I' and ds a place to do his special wPiting;nthat helwaseabsenthfrom the country eight months out
~ `. of the
year, and a secretary would primarily be on the preinises during daytime hours only;
~ p Y.
i and that the adjoining property owners had endorsed the proposed use of subject pro ert
' Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that due to the fact that the home
would not be occupied by a member of the family, a home occupation permit was not permitted
to be given by the interpretation of the home occupation definition.
~; No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEkRING WAS CIASED.
' ~ Commissioner Perry expressed concern th~t the proposed use of subject property would be an
encroachment into a residential area and might set a precedent or open the door for similar
r"'~* ~ requests for other homes in that area; that the petitioner had not proven a hardship existed;
~ and that the use would be incompatible.
~~ i
'r :, i
~; y
' ;j
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C~MMISSION, May 9, 1966
3027
VARIANCE N0. 1791 - Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that the
(Continued) variance gave control by limiting the uses on subject property, and
if the Commission so desired, a specific use could be established for
the property, and none other could be permitted through the variance
application if it were approvedo
Commissioner Mun9a11 offered Resolution No. 2024, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1791 for
a period of two years, and ~hat the use of subject property shall be limited to the mainten-
ance of the office for a professional writer's office and records. (See Resolution Book.)
On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COhMAISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp.
IJOES: COMMISSIONERS: Perry.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
Commissioner Perry, in voting "NO" on subject petition, stated the use would ~ot be compatible
to the residential integrity of the area and no hardship had been proven by the petitioner.
Commissioner Rowland returned to the Council Chamber at 2:40 P.M.
VARIANCE N0. 1794 - PUBLIC HEARING. DESMOND MACTAVISH d ASSOCIATES, 650 Cali.fornia Street,
San Francisco, California, Owner; SKEOCH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 524
West Commonwealth, Fullerton, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF AN R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE (PARCEL 2); WAIVERS OF
(1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEI HT WITHIN 1~0 FEET OF AN R-A ZO~JE, (2) MININ ~~ BUILDING SETBACK,
(3) MItJIMUNi DISTANCE I3EIVJEEN BUILDINuS, (4) 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL ABUITING AN R-A ZONE TO THE
iJORTH OF SIIBJEGT PROPERTY, (5) SECTION 18.28.050(9){b) WHICH REQUIRES EVERY LIVING UNIT TO
: BE WI7~HIN 200 FEET OF A STkNDARD STREET, ANU (6) SECTION 18.28.050(6)(c) WHIC4 PERMITS AIJ
ACCESSORY BUILDING TO ABUT A SIDE PROPERTY LINc ONLY VJITHIN THE REAR 259~ OF A BUILDING SITE
(PARCEL 3) on property described as: (Parcel 1) An irregularly shaped oarcel of land situated
ut the northeast corner of Gilbert Street and Lincoln Avenue and having frontages oi appz•oxi-
mately 150 feet on Gilbert Street and approximately 150 feet en Lincoln kvenue; (Parcel 2) An
'L" shaped parcel of land situated northerly and easterly of Parcel 1 and having frontages of
approximately 145 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 140 feet on Gilbert Street; and
(Parcel 3) A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a fron*_age of approximately 372 feet on
the east side of Gilbert Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 298 feet, the
southerly boundary of subject parcel beiny a;ijacent to the northerly boundary of Parcel 2.
Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTUR~L, ZUNE.
Mr. J. Graham Wilson, agent for the petitioner, appea :: before the Commission and reviewed
the reasons for the requested waivers.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald lhompson advised the Commission that waiver of the one-~tory hei9ht
limitation along the east and north boundary lines had been approved under V~riance No. 1744;
however, the plans indicated two-story construction was being proposed within 150 feet of the
R-A parcelsto the west.
i
~ The Commission inq~ired of the agent for the petitioner ~+~hether he was aware tnat the plans
indicated two-story construction within 150 feet of the R-A parcels to the west, to which
Mr. 4'Jilson replied in the affirmative, stating, however, that the street frontage apartments
would be sirgle-story in constructiono
i
~ The agent for the petitioner also indicated there was proposed to be 4~,~ coverage oi subject
property, whereas the R-3 Zone permitted approximately 60% coverage.
I .
j` PAr. Thompson, in clarifying the statement made by the agent for the petitioner, stated it was
~ now being proposed to havr: two structures, whereas under the planned residential develooment
{,': concept if three or more structures were proposed, coverage wculd be considerably reduced,
I`, and subject property could be developed in accordance with th~ R-3 standards as indicated by
the petitionero
It was alr,o noted by Mro Thompson that the pruposed structures would be similar to those on
Palm Lane and the multiple-family development at Ball R~ad and Magnolia Avenue.
Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that the trash storage turn-around area
was indicated as 20 by 65 feet, and a check with the Traffic Engineer indicated this would
be too narrow to permit adequate turn-around and recommended the Commission require a turn-
* around area of 25 by 70 feet, which could be accomplished by reducing the narking stall sizes.
~
MINUTES, CI'lY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 9, 1966 3028
~
VARIANCE N0. 1794 - Mro S. Jo Pohlmann, 2333 West Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the
(Continued) Commission in oppo:~tion and stated he was the owner of the five-acre
parcel to the ea~t of subject property and inquired when the waiver of
the one-story he:.ght limitation to the east had been granted, since he
was unaware this had happenedo
The Commission advised the opposition the height waiver was granted under Variance No. 1744,
and inquired whether or not he was oppcsed to the waiver of the height limitation, to which
Mr~ Pohlmann replied he did not oppo~e the height waiver, but would oppose any waiver of the
required wall.
The agent for the peiitioner stated the waiver of the required masonry wall was for dlong
the north property line adjacent to the golf course, and it was their intent to construct
, a masonry wa11 along the east property line.
Mr. Pohlmann then asked that the wall be constructed prior to any development on the property
so that the agricultural products on his property would be protected.
Mr. Thompson advised the Commission the waiver of the one-story hei~nt limitation to the
east was granted in the latter part of 1965, and that Mr. Pohlmann had been mailed a notice
of public hearing at that timeo
~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the request for waiver of the one-story
height limitation along the west property line, and it was the opinion of the Commission
that their prior decision of requiring sin9le-story within 150 feet of the R-A property to
the west was still in effect, and the petitioner would lose four dwelling units by requir-
ing the construction to remain at one story within 150 feet of the small R-A parcels to the
: west.
Commissioner Perry offered P,esolution IJo. 2025, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Pe:ition for Variance No. 1794,
except that waiver of the one-story height limitation within 150 feet of the R-A parcels co
the west was denied, and further provided that the trash access areas shsll be increased to
25 by 75 feet, and conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, P.owland, Camp.
NOES: OJMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSEN~: COWu1ISSI0NERS: None~
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that since subject petition was
, approved in part, the requirement of Reclassification No. 61-62-92 to record a tract map
sllould be deleted by resolution~
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution !Jo. 2029, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissio~._r Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that an amend-
ment be maoe to Condition 4-P, of Resolution No. 65R-799 approving Reclassification I~o.
~ 61-62-92, Revised, be deleted based on the fact that the proposed plans of development under
Vari.ance No. 1794 would permit the development of the property in accordance with the R-3
Zone standards. (See Resolution Book.)
_ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIQNERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: PJone.
ABSENT: CO,WuIISSI0NER5: None.
VARIANCc N0. 1795 - PIBLIC HEARIfJG~ HUMBLE OIL d REFINJNG COMPANY, Box 7033, Long Beach,
` California, Owner; BILL WINTERBERG, 923 Arlee Place, Anaheim, California,
Er Agent; requesting permission to WAIVE (1) NUM3ER OF FREE-STANDING SIGiJS,
AND (2) LOCATION OF A FREE-STANDI~G SIGN on property described as: An irregularly shaped
r; parcel of land situated at the northwest corner of North Street and East Street and having
s~ frontages of approxim~tely 123 feet on North Street and approximately 54 feet on East Street,
~ and further described as 1?09 East North Street. Property presently classified R-1,
ONE-FAMILY RESIDElJTIAL, ZOIJE.
~ ~ Mr. Bill Winterberg, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that
~ the Sign Ordinance permitted the signing of property on each street on which it fronts and that
subject oroperty fronted on three streets, and the petitioner was requesting an additional
;~ sign along the west property line :.djacent to North Street~
d
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING ~MMISSION, A1ay 9, 1966
3029
VARIANCE_N0. 1795 - The Co~nission inquired of Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts what
(Continued) was the stand taken by the Western Oil and Gas Association, as well
as the City Council, when the Sign Ordinance was considered at public
hearing~
Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that both the City Co~!ncil and the staff reviewed with
the Western Cil and Gas Association the location of the signs,and the ordinance as written
was approved by said association.
The Commission noted that with the closing of North Street, no through traffic would be
passing the service station from North Street; therefore the requested sign was unnecessary.
Furthermore,the traffic flow would be along La Palma Avenue and East Street, and the re-
~, location of the existing sign to the northeast corner would adequately advertise the service
• station. Furthermore, subject property was visible from the north for approximately one-half
~. mile because of the existence of the flood control basin northerly of subject property.
! Mr~ Winterberg stated a sign was necessary to establish the trademark of a company, and if
i:, the height of the sign or detrimental view of the sign was opoosed by the property owners,
~ y he would atternpt to cooperate and relocate the sign - however the requested sign was necessary
for advertising subject. property along North Street.
' The Commission advised the agent for the petitioner that the signing of property could not be
considered on an individual basis but on a community-wide effect of signs, and the proposed
sign would be an intrusion into the residentiol integrity of the area; furthermore, the
petitioner had not proven a hardship existed since with the closing of North Street, no
through traffic would be using this street, and residents in the area would know of the
location of said service station.
h1r. T. L. GeLker, 1025 East North Street, appeared before the Commission in opoosition and
stated his property was immediately adjoininy to the west of the service station site, and
he was opposed to any additional signing of subject property, particularly along the west
property line; that it was difficult now to keep the residential integrity of the area by
the ncise and operation of the service statio~ at n.`.~lit, and the sign would be a further
encroachment into this privacy.
THE HEARING VJAS CLGSED.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 2026, Series 1965-06, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perr~, to deny Petition for Variance IJo~ 1795 on
the basis that no hardship had been shown by the petitioner; that subject property would be
adequatelv signed if tt~e e~:i.sting sign vuere relocated te the northeast corner oi the service
station site;and thatwith tneclosing of North Street, nu through traf;ic would be using North
Street to necessiiGte the property owner of the service station having an additional sign
along the West property 1ine. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIGVERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COhtiUISSIONEP.S: i~one.
ABS=UT: COMMISSIUIJERS: Idone.
RECLASSIF A"fION - PUBLIC HEARING. TED FREEh1kN, Box 3303, Anaheim, Ca1i.'ornia, Cwner;
NU• 05-56-105 RObERT HASLER, 15;i14 Canelones Drive, Hacienda }ieiy;:,.s, California, Agent;
re,uesting tha*. property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of
land with a frontage of approximately 60 feet on the west side of Maanol;a
Hvenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 120 feet, the southern boundary of subject
property beinq approximately 233 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road, and further des-
cribed as 919 South Magnolia Avenue, be reclassified from the R-1, OIJc-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,
ZONE to the C-1, GENERF,L COMMERCIAL, ZUNE.
A9r. Robert Hasler, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the
zoninq of properties in close proximity to subject property and indicated no change in struc-
~ural plan was proposed for subject property; that the property would be used tor an accounting
offic~; and that if any structurzl chan9e took place, he would submit a petition for said
change.
:~ I The Commission noted that the parking for subject property was dependent upon tlie size of
' the structure, and since the existing structure was 1,100 square feet, this would require
four parking spaces; tt~~at although a service station tivas immediately adjacent to subject
`~1 ' property at the south and had a dedicated alley, there was insufficient room to use the
~~ ~~; existing alley to park at the rear of subject property and still provide for a turn-around.
, ~
~
MINUIES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 9, 1966 3030
RECLASSIFICA:'ION - Discussion was held relative to the revision of Area Development Plan
N0. 65-66-106 Noo 56 regarding use of the properties along the west side of Magnolia
(Continued) Avenue, southerly of Rome Avenue; that after the required dedication
for widening of Magnolia Avenue was complied with, ±ogether with the
dedication of an alley, this would leave an approximate 60 by 80-foot
strip of land for commercial purposes. The Commission also inquired whether the petitioner
was aware of the area development plan which required the removal of one home between two
of the existing homes to provide for parking for the use of the two homes, to which the
petitioner replied in the negativeo
It was further noted by the Commission that with the location of ~he homesand the proposed
width of the street, the individual homes along Magnolia Avenue could not b~a developed on
a lot by iot basis because there was insufficient property to pi•ovide for e.dequate parking
and still have an acceptable commercial development~
Mrs. Pearl Dodge, 821 South Magnolia Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated
the Cit~~ Council had made plans to meet with the property owners on South Magnolia Avenue
on h7ay 24 to discuss the possibility of developing the properties for commercial purposes,
and then presented a number of the alternatives she had read regarding the use of the
properties; that with the opening of the stadium, many people were using Magnolia Avenue
as a north-south street for access to Katella Avenue and the stadium proper; that the homes
could not be sold for residential purposes - however many of the property owners were
interested in developir.g their properties for commercial purposes; that the ho~e to the
north of her was already prepared to use as a butcner supply of`ice and a carpet cleanin9
office; that because of the many small children in the area, living along a heavily traveled
street was very difficult; that the area did not have sidewalks and children had to use the
street to go to school northerly of subject property; and that if commercial uses of the
properties was not considered advisable, the City should construct sidewalks in order to
keep the children off of the heavily traveled street.
Assistant Planner Francis PJutto advised the Commission that the revised Area Develooment
Plan No. 56 had been reviewed by the Commission several weeks ago, and the Commission had
recommended that the staff ineet with th? property owners to present ~he plan as the Camussion
had reviewed it, and that it was the intent oi the staif to ~eet with the property owrers
on Wednesday, PAay 18, to discuss the alternative possibilities.
A'':nwing of han~s indicated two persons present in :avor of tne proposed reclassification..
The Co~nmission ad~~ised Mrs. Dodge ttiat it was recognized there was some oroblem existing
along PAagnolia Avenue; however, the Commission was desirous of having any development occur-
ring in that area in an orderly fashion, and to attempt to discouroge any development similar
,'
~ to that on IJorth Brookhurst Street where parking was permitted on the front lawns,.
;~ Commissioner hlungall offered a motion to continue public hearing of Petition for Reclassifi-
cation No. 55-66-i06 to the meeting of June o, 19~5, in order to allow time for the staff
to meet with the property ~wners of properties along the west s'9e of Magnolia Avenue between
- Rome Avenue and Ba11 Road. Commissioner Herbst secondeo tne motion. h'I~TIUtJ CARRIED.
' RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. CASSAT GEAL, 1771 South llallas Urive, and JACK G, ~ELL,
~ IJO. 65-65-115 1775 South Dallas Drive, Anaheim, California, Gwners; requesting that
~ property described as: An irre ularl sha ed
9 y ~ parce: of land located at
the northwest corner of Dallas Drive and K.atella A~enue and having frontages
of approximately 17_5 feet on uallas Urzve and approximately 120 feet on Katella Avenue, and
further described as 1771 and 1775 South Dallas llrive, be reclassified from the R-1, OIJE-
i FAMILY RESID6;JiIF~L, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL CONVv1ERCIAL, ZONE.
i Mrs. Cassat Geal, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and stated that when
she purchased her home ten years ago she thought this would be the edge of the city with a
i. quiet residential zone - however, since Katella has been designated for a primary highway, the
! traffic has become too heavy to make the properties along Katella Avenue livable for residen-
' tial purposes, and this was the reason for requesting commercial zoning for her property
fronting on Katella Avenue; that the noises from large trucks made it impossible to get any
rest at night; that her property was only a short distan~e f*om Brookhurst and Katella wherF
commercial shoppin9 was already establisheo; and furthermore, in response to Commission
questioning, stated that subject property had access from Dallas Drive, and she had no plans
for a specific commercial use for subject preperty.
~
Mr. Robert Ames, 1759 South Uallas Drive, appeared before the Commission and stated he had
~ submitted a petition signed by 49 property owners opposing the proposed reclassification,
based on the fact that the only access to the single-family development northerly of Katella
~ Avenue was through Dallas Urive and to
~x residential area would create a~traffic ha~ard, a~~me~cWas hoped1ttiehCommission would9retainlly
the area for r?sidantial purposes.
~
1~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COh1MISSION, May 9, 1966
3031
RECLASSIFICATION - hlro Thomas Tarbox, 2032 Midwood Lane, appeared before the Commission and
N0. 65-66-115 stated he was on the o
, (Continued) that the area was a relativelycneweresidentialrarea~leadingcfrom~Katella
Avenue on Dallas Drive, and those who had purchased their properties had
hoped it would remain residential more than the four years that had just
transpired. •
Mr. Gerald Arriola, 2031 Judith Lane, appeared before tha Commission and stated he had pur-
chased his property just eighteen months ago; that he was not opposed to commercial as such,
but because the petitioner had no plans for the use of the property, a blanket commercial
use would invite service stations, bars, and liquor stores and undesirable types of commer-
cial usas for the property which would be detrimental t~ the residential integrity of the
area since there were so many small children along Dallas Drive; and that since there were
~~: so many children residing on Dallas Drive, the intrusion of automobiles would be infringing
; upon the property rights of the R-1 homes already established there.
:. '~
Mra Leroy Bose, 12411 Rebecca Lane, Santa Ana, appeared before the Commission in favor of
~'~ subject petition and stated he had ~wned
'~ property in the immediate vicini±y of subject
; property - however he had moved from the area because he felt Katella Avenue was no lon9er
a good for residential uses and commercial uses for subject property would be much more desirable.
- ~ A letter of o
pposition was read to the Commission from Mrs. Betty Marquardt, 1665 South
± Nutwood Streeto
Mrs, Gea~, in rebuttal, stated that those properties fronting on Katella Avenue had a similar
problem as those which were being considered under an area development plan for Magnolia
Avenue; that the homes were impossible to rent or live in for residential purposes; that a
beauty shop already existed four doors from Dallas Drive along Katella Avenue; and that many
homes on Y.atella Avenue were up for sale wi±h "commercial potential" advertisement on them
because of tl~e heavy traffic, and the proposed commercial zoning for subject property would
not increase the traffic to Da11as DrivP appreciably.
Gffice Engineer Arthur Uaw, in response to Commission questioning, stateo the ultimate width
of Katella Avenue for both P.naheim and Garden Grove indicated it for 120-foot wide street
which would mean an additional ten feet of subject property would be required for dedication
and improvements.
~ '? THE HEARINu ~~"JAS CLGSED.
_ Uiscussion was held by the Commission :elative to the proposed request, it being noted that
the southerly poi•tion of subject property might have some problem; however, the northerly
portion and the southerly portion f:onted on Dallas Drive, and the southerly portion sided
on Katella Avenue, which meant they were less affected by heavy traffi.c, other than noise,
than those homes which fronted on Magnolia Avenue. It was also noted 'oy the Commissian that a
six-foot masonry wall with~ landscape screening would aid materiall; in reducing the noises
trom traffic along Katella Avenue. Furthermore, the land use in tiie area was basically
residential, and the proposed commercial use would be an intrusion into a;ine residential
area, together with being at the entrance o: a three-block street and the fact that there
already existed the dedicated alley to the west of che northerly parcel, and i: commercial
uses were established, this would sliminate any possibility of future redevelopment using
~ ~ the alley for access
~ purposes.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 2027, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passaye
and adoption, seconded by Com~nissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification IJo. 65-66-115 be disapproved on the basis that the locatior. of subject
oroperty was basically in a residential area; that the commercial use proposed would be an
intrusion into the residantial integrity already established; that an alley dead-ended into
the northerly portion of subject property, and if commercial uses were established on subject
property, this would automatically eliminate use of the alley for access purposes since the
commercial code reyui:ed a six-foot masonry wall and landsca~ing to separate residential from
commercial uses. (See Resolution Book.)
;
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
; AYtS: COI~IMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: CCMMISSIONERS: None.
~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~
~
tiiINUTES, CITY PLANNING COt~M7ISSI0N, May 9, 1966 3032
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. E WJIN DURST, 1120 Park Avenue, New York, New York,
N0. 65-66-114 Owner; GREG WELTON, c~o Coldwell Banker a Compa~y, 4322 Wilshire
Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Agent; property described as:
.ARI~NCE N0. 1792 An irregularly shaped parcel of land (approximately 9~ acres) lying
east and south of a 175 by 20G-foot parcel located at the southeast
GENERAL PLAN :orner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Lemon Street znd having frontages
AMENDtdENT N0. 77 of approximately 385 feet on Orangethorpe Avenue and approxima~ely
640 feet on Lemon Street. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT
INDUSTP,IAL, ar;d P-L, PARKING-LANDSCAPING, ZONES.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MiNIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES ON
DEPARTMENT STORE SITE, AND (2) SECTION 18.40.020
NHICH LIMITS A SERVICE STATION TO THE INTEP.SECTION
OF iVJO ARTERIAL STREETS .
~
~
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission thatrevised plans s~bmitted by the agentfor
the petitioner indicated that the service station and tire, battery ano accessory center
would no longer be planned for ±he property - therefore the variance was no longer in
effect, and recommended that the Commission ask whether the petitioner was planning to
withdraw Variance No. 1792.
Commis ioner Herbst expressed concern that landscaping adjacent to the M-1 District along
Orangethorpe Avenue was quite extensive, and a 50-foot setQack with landscaping was required
of ihe M-1 Zone, whereas the Nroposed commercial zone w~ul~ not require it, and that in h~s
opinion, at least 15 feet of landscaping should be required.
Mr. Thompsor. advised the Commission that 3 feet of landscaping was ~roposed along Orange-
thorpe Avenue and Lemon Street, and that 5o was proposed within the interior parking lot;
that. the pro~osed use would be similar to that alonq Sauth knah~im Bouleva:d, formerly known
"CMA"; tnat a number of con~mercial facilities established in the City had been yranted while
under the jurisdiction of tt,• i;ounty, and their site development standards we:~ considerably
different fiom the Cit~~ of P.naneim.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the recommendation that deoication of all
access rights to Durst Avenue be made to the City of Anaheim, it being noted that Durst
Avenue acted as aningress in the morning and an egress in the aiternoon from the Nortronics
plant easterly of subject property.
O;fice Engineer Arthur Uaw advised the Commission, i~ response to questioning, that it had
not been anticipated th~t Durst Street be widened since the heaviest flow of traffic was only
tw:.e a day; that the existing width of the street would be adequate to handle the tra;fic if
access to this street vias dedicated to the City by the petitioner; and that widening of the
street was almost impossible because many of the inuustrial builclinys to the east of subject
• coperty were already located on the prop?rty line and dedication would be almost impossible
to obtain. Furthermore, ir' an/ access to Durst Street was planned by the petitioner, he
v~ould have to ask for abandonment of the access riahts whi~h h? ~.vould be dedicating in order
tu give the City additional street width :rom subject property.
IJo one was present to represent the petitioner.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions.
THE HEARING VJAS CLUSED.
The i;ommission discussed the possibility uf requiring planted trees in the par~:ing a*ea
since this would add immeasurably to treaking up tt~e "sea of asphalt" appearance of many
commercial develc?ments, and that the P.n~heim Broadway-Robinson Center was prooi that well
spaced and plante~i trees would add to the beauty of the area.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 2028, Series 1905-66, and R.oved for it.s passage
and adoption, seconded by (;ommissioner Allred, to recommend to the City wuncil t~~at Petition
for Reclassification No. 65-6u-114 be approved, subject te conditions and the requirement
that subject prope-ty be developed in ;:ccordance with the C-1 site develooment standards,
and that the petitioner be urged to pl.ant as many ~rees as possible in the landscaped portion
of the parking area to add to the beautification of the area. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll cal: the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMh1ISSI0NERS: Allred, Gauer, rlerbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowiand, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
HBSENT: CQMMISSIONF.RS: None.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 9, 1966 3033
RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Allred offered a motion to terminate all proceedings on
N0. 65-66-114 Petition for Variance No. 1792, based on the fact that the revised
plans indicated there no longer was a need for a variance. Commissioner
VARIANCE N0. 1792 Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
GENERAL PLAN Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 2030, Series 1965-66, and
AMENDMENT N0. 77 moved for its passage and adoption, secunded by Commissioner Gauer,
, (Continued) to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 77
be disapproved and referred to annual review of the General Plan.
(See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~
~ AYES: COf~1MISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
' NOES: CONuMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COh1h4ISSI0NERS: IJone.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ?P.TRICIA F. JACKSON, 17660 Walnut Street, Fountain
N0. 65-66-116 Val!ey, California, Owner; property described as: A rectangularly
, shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 83 feet on the
VARIF,NCE N0. 17g3 north side of Lanerose Drive and having a maximum depth of approximately
234 feet, the western boundary of sub;ect property being approximately
GENERAL PLAN 415 feet east of the centerline of Western Avenue. Property presently
AtdENDMENT N0. 7F, classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
I
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2, N~ULTIYiE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
i
REQUESTED VARIAIJCE: WAIVER OF MAXIMUM BUILDING I-IEIGHT VJITHIN
150 FEET OF AN R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Mr. Robe:t K. Jackson, son of the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed
the proposed development, notinq that over the past twelve years since they have had the
property the taxes had increased and the prope*ty had remained vacant, and that the proposed
development would enhance the area.
. Mr. J. J. i~:rek, 1234 South Western Avenue, appeared before the Commission in favor of subject
; petition stating hi.s property backed on to subject property; that he was ciesirous oi seeing
subject property developed because it was being used for parking by teenagers and as an un-
- supervised playground for children.
Mr. Herbert Lieberman, 12ii21 Ohmer Way, Gorden Grove, appeared before the Commission and
stated he was in favor of the proposed development; that he owned property fronting on
Ball Road, which backed on to subject property, and that he was also desirous of develop-
ing the lono, narrow lots of which subject prop=rty was a part.
Mr. Jack Adams, 1302 Garrett Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated
he had a pe~ition signed by 77 property owners opposing the proposed intrusion of multiple-
family reside~tial development into a single-family residential area; thzt the developers o;
j the sinyle-family homes had aitempted to purchase several of the long, narrow parcels, but
I had met with resistance to any sale of property alony Lanerose Di•ive, and that Laneros?
Drive represer.ted the only through street to LVestern Avenue for the small streets o~.~ihich
the single-family homes branched of: of; that the proposed development would be incom,~atible
with the surrounding area which was single-fa;nily residential in character; that it wo.ild
depreciate the value of the single-family homes; that it would be an invasion of privacy to
nave two-story multiple-family homes in close proximity to sinyle-family homes; that an
~ increase in the numb?r of rjwelling units wouid also increase the traffic conditions and
~ parking facilities in the immediate area; and that the majority of the property owners in
I- the area were of the opinion that single-family dwellings would be more compatible.
I
Mr. E. L. Sones, 1238 South Nlestern Avenue, appeared t~efore the Commission in favoi ^f
subject petition and stated 'ne was concerned because his property was immediately adjacent
to subject property also, and that the children vaere using it as an unsupervised playground.
Mr. S7m Punter, 1318 Masterson Street, appeared before the Commission and stated he was
desirous of having the property developed; that the property was located off of a main
terial whicn was basically used as an area for developing multiple-family residential
~s; that when the property owners of the single-family homes had purchased the properties
ry were assured the area would be developed for single-family hom~s; and that the proposed
, .,iltiple-family development would destroy tf,e identity of the single-family home integrity.
~ ~ffice Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission there was no plan to change the width of
LanPr.ose Drive from its existir~9 60-foot width.
~
I
MINUTES, CI'CY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 9, 1966 3034
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr~ Jackson, in rebuttal, stated he had made a number of attempts to
N0. 05-66-116 develop subject property over the years; that two years previous to
this he had attempted to place an 84-unit, single-family development
VARIANCE N0~ 1793 on subject and abutting properties, and he had been discouraged in
developing this, and before that he had proposed a 21-unit R-3 develop-
GENERAL PLAN ment - however he had now reduced the number of units to 8; and that
AMENDMENT N0. 76 the living area would be on the first floor and the sleeping area would
(Continued) be on the second floor. Furthermore, he had never been approached by
the developer of the R-1 homes for the purchase of his property for
single-family residential development.
~
i.
Fourteen persons indicated their presence in the Council Chamber in opposition to subject
- petitionsa
'CHE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the problem of the deep, narrow lots
of which subject property was a part and the fact that several years ago the Urban Renewal
Divisio:i had expressed considerable concern these lots would have to have land assembly
in order to develop into a compatible residential use; that three additional property
owners had expressed interest in developing the property and tilere was a possible chance
that many of these parcels could be developed with a land assembly for sinyle-family
residential uses along Lanerose Drive and multiple-family residential uses of the other
parcels with access to Western Avenue or Ball Road.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to deny Petition fo: Reclassification No. 65-66-116
on the basis thot the area was predominantly single-family resiaential development; that
subject property coulci be developed with adjoining properties for R-1 uses as a buffer to
the lona, narrow parcels adjacent to subject property which might develop if the long,
narrow parceis were assembled in land assemoly development.
Considerable discussion was ther hel.d by the Commission relative to the possibility of
continuing subject petitions and requesting that the staff ineet with all the property
owners of the long, narro~: parcels for an expression of opinion relative to land assembly
for these parcels prior to the Commission's decision on subject petitions~
The Commission also inquired of those property owners present in the Council Chamber
whether or not they would have any opposition to possible land assembly of the parcels of
land for development. The petitionar, h1r. Jackson, Mr. Turek, A1r. Liek~erman, and Mr. Sones
indicated their willingness to meet to discuss possible land assembly.
Commissioners Allred and Perr}' wi~tidrew their motion and seconti to deny subject petition.
Commissioner A11red ofiered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue consideration of
Petitions for Reclassification No. 55-66-116, Variance IJo. 1793, and General Ylan Amend-
ment No. 76 to the meeting of June 6, 1966, in order to allow time for the staff to meet
with the property owners of the long, narrow parcels adjacent to subject property for
possible land assembly. Commissioner Ra~vland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS - Commissioner Rowland of:ereo a motion to recess the meeting
at 4:33 P.M. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion.
lv1~TI0f4 CARRIED~
RECOtJVEP1E - Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at 4:43 P.M., all
Commissianers being present.
~
_ .Y. _n
~
MINUTES, CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 9, 1966
3035
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANPdING COMMISSION, 204 East
N0. 65-66-107 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Henry Steinbrink, 516 South
Revere Street, Anaheim, California, Owner. Property described as:
QJNDITIONAL USE An irregularly shaped parcel of land situated at the southwest corner
PERPAIT N0. 834 of Santa Ana Street and State Co11egE Boulevard and having frontages of
approximately 90 feet on Santa Ana Street and approximately 110 feet on
~ State College Boulevard. Property presently classified C-3, HEAVY
COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL CONV~ERCIAL, ZONE.
PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE: PE~~IT Ah EXISTING SERVICE STATION AS A CONFORMING USE IN THE
~'°'`~'~ C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
:~~ ~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that Petitions for Reclassification
~ Nos. 65-66-107, 109, 110, 111 and Conditional Use Permit fJos. 834, 835, 836, and 837 were
part of the continuing proceas of reclassifying properties into their most appropriate zones.
{
l No one appeared ir. opposition to subject petitions.
~
~ .~ ; THE HEARIR~ WAS CLOSED.
l~ Commissioner Mungall offere~ Resolution No. 2J31, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passaoe
a~d zdoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommen.l to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No. 65-66-107 be approved, unconditionally. (See Resolution Book.)
I On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~ AYES: COMMISSiONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, h1ur.gall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: IJone.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Uo. 2032, Series 1965-G6, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use ?ermit
No. 834, unconditionally. (See Resolution Book.)
Un roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the ;ollowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, M~ngall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
NCES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
RECLASSIFICATIOiJ - PUBLIC HEARIClG. IN::TIATE~ BY THE CITY PLANNING COA7MISSIOtJ, 204 East
N0. 65-66-108 Lincoin Avenue, Analieim, California. Pablo Dominguez, 1523 East Santa
Ana Street, ~naneirr., Califnrnia, Owner. Property described as: An
irregularly shape~: parcel of land situated at the southeast corner of
Ba11 Road and State Col:ege Boulevard and having frontages of approximately 150 feet on
Ball Road and approximately 150 feet on ~tate Colle9e Boulevard. Prooerty presently
classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZOIJE.
?ROPOSED CLAS~IFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COA1MERCIAL, ZONE, to establish an existing service
station in the most appropriate zone.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
"CHE f-~.ARING WAS CL'JSED.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution tJo. 2033, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recomrt~end to the City Council that Petitior.
for Rec:lassification No. 65-66-108 be approved, unconditionally. (See Resolution Book.)
On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
A~'6S: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Munua :'erry, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: CON~AISSIONERS: None.
ABSEiVT: COAti'vIISSIONERS: None.
_R1
~
~.
r
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 9, 1966 3036
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ~ITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
N0. 65-66-109 Lincoln AvP~~ue, A~~aheim, California. Joseph Huarte, 1464 East La Palma
Avenue, A~,aheim, California, Owner. Property described as: An irregular-
CONDITIONAL USE ly shaped parcel of land situated at the norttiwest corner of Vzrmont Avenue
PERMIT N0. 835 znd State College Boulevard and having frontages of aparoximately 112 feet
on Vermont Avenue and approximately 135 feet on State College Boulevar~.
Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION AS A CONFORMING USE IN THE
C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
': No one apneared in o osition to sub'ect
PP ,7 petitions.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 2C34, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
an~ adoption, seconded by Corrimissianer Mungall, to recortunend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No. 65-66-109 be approved, unconditionally. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
IJOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSEIJ"l: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No, 2035, Series 19G5-o5, and moved for its passage
and a~ioption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Fetition for Conditional Use Permit
fdo. 835, unconditionally. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll coll the foregoing resolution was passed by t5e following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIOPJERS: Allred, Gauer, Nerbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COP/~vtlSSIONERS: None.
ABSEfJT: COMMISSIOtJERS: None.
_ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATEp BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
N0. 65-66-110 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Midgy Incorporated, 1233 South
Camden, Los Angeles, California, 90035, Owner. Property described as:
CONDLTIOI~AL USE An irregularly shaped parcel of land situated at the northeast corner
PERMIT N0. t336 oi State College Boulevard and Westport Drive and having frontages of
approximately 135 feet on State College Boulevard and approximately 196
feet on Westport Drive. Property presently classified C-3, HEAVY
COMMERCIAL, ZOIJE (cieed restricted to a service station use only).
PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COhMAERCIAL, ZONE.
~ PHOPOSED CON:~ITIONAL US`.i: CSTAP.LISH APJ E;iISTING SERVICE 5TATION AS A CONFORMING USE
I IN THE C-1, GENERAL COh1MERCIAL, ZONE AT THE INTERSECTION OF
A FRItv1NRY HIGHWAY AND A LUCAL STREET.
No one appeared in opposition te subiect petiti.ons.
THE HEARIDJG ~VAS CLOSED.
.~i ~
j Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 2036, Series 1905-60, and moveo for its passage
~ and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
~- for Reclassification No. 65-56-110 be a
pproved, unconditionally. (See Resolution Book.)
Un roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIOtJERS: Allred, Gauer, Herhst, Idungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: C0~/iMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIOVERS: None.
::ommissioner Gauer offPred RFSOlution No. 2037, Series 1905-66, and moved for its passage
:r,d adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to granl, Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 836, unconditionally. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~
AYES: CONJdISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mun9a11, ~~:•rry, Rowland, Camp.
NGFS: COMMISSIONERS: None.
, HBSENT: COMMISSIOIJERS: None.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ma}• 9, 1966
3037
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
N0. 65-66-11i _ rincoln Avenue, Ananei~, California. Mr. Harold Chapman, R.R. 1,
Box 471-A, Lahaina ;Nau, Hawaii, Owner. Property described as: A
CONDITIONAL USE rectangularly shaped parcel of land situated at the southwes:. corner
PERMIT N0. 837 of Lincoln Avenue and East Street and having frontages of approximately
108 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 125 feet on east Stree~.
Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDL-NTIAL, ZONE.
G~ ~
~~j ~*
:`~ ~
;d
PROPOSED CLASSI~ICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION AS A CONFORMING USE
IN THE C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE WITHIN 75 FEET OF
A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
ConMissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 2038, Series 1965-66, and moved for its pzssage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No. 65-66-111 be approved, unconditionally. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: G~MMISSIONERS: A11red, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: CUMh1ISSI0NERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIOtJERS: None.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 2039, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petiti~~. for Conditional Use Permit
Noe 837, unconditionally. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIUNERS: Allred, Gouer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, ~amp.
AlOES: COMP~ISSIONERS: None.
ABSEIJT: CGMMISSIONERS: None.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLlC HEARING. IIJITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COhM1ISSI0U, 204 East
N0. 65-60-113 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Millie Remland, 12332 Chapman
Avenue, Space 57, Garden Grove, Calitornia, Owner. Property described
as: P.n irreguiarly shaped parcel of land situated at the northeast
corner of Orange Hvenue and Beach Boulevard and having frontages of approximately 135
feet on Orange Avenue and approximately 135 feet on Beach Boulevardo Property presently
classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
PROPOScD CLASSIFICATIOIJ: C-1, GENERAL COM,~IERCIAL, ZONE, to establish an existing
service station in a more appropriate zone.
No one appeared in opposition t~ subject petition.
THE. HcP.RINv WAS CLOSEU.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Ido. 2040, Series 1965-oL, and moved ior its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No. 65-66-113 be approved, unconditionally. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
NGES: COf~'~1~IS5IOiJcRS: fdone.
ABSEiI'f: CUI~1'f~ISSION'r:k5: iJ:;ne.
P
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 9, 1966 3038
REPORTS AfJD - ITEM N0. 1
RECOMMENDATIONS Conditional Use Permit No. 53 - Glacier Falls Ice Rink -
Approval of rev:sed plans for an addition to provide office space.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson advised the Commission that Mr. George Baney
had submitted revised plans for the expansion of the existing office of the Glacier
Falls Ice Rink at the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Zeyn Street under Conditional
Use Permit No. 53; that the number of parking spaces remained unchanged since the existing
9-foot wide spaces had been reduced to the minimum 8~ feet, thus creating room for ihe
five spaces which would be eliminated where the addition was proposed. Furthe*more,
landscaping was also indicated on the revised plans in the parking area.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to approve revised plans to permit a 1,000 square
foot addition under Conditional Use Permit No. 53, marked Revision No. 1, Exhibit No. 1,
provided, however, that the existing parking lot be restriped and landscaping installed
as indicated on the revised plans. Commissioner Perry seconded the moiion. ~dOTION
CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 2
Conditional Use Permit No. 517 - Termination - To expand an
existing union assembly building - Carpenter's Hall, 608 West
Vermont Avenue.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson advised the Commission that Conditional Use Permit
No. 517 was granted by the Commission in Resolution No. 1002, Series 1963-64, on January 2,
1964; that a six monttis' extension of time was 9ranted retroactive on October 26, 1964,
expiring January 24, 1965; that a one-year extension of time was 9ranted on June 21, 1965,
also retroactive, which expired January 24, 1966; that a second one-year extension of time
was granted by the Commission on March 14, 1906 with the provision that the petitioner pay
the street lignt bill o~ $394.00 within two weeks; that the staff had cor,tacted the United
Brotherhood uf Carpenters and Joiners of America relative to payment of the street light
bi11 and had received a letter from the financial secretary advising they wished to have
a11 proceedin9s of Conditional Use Permit No. 517 terminated, based on the fact that the
executive committee of the local unio;~ were unable to complete their expansion.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 2041, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to terminate all proceedings on Conditional
Use Permit No. 517, based on ttie fact that the petitioner requested said termination.
(See Resolution IIook.)
On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin9 vote:
AYES: COMtv1ISSI0NERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, ~dungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
i~bES: CO~NISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COh1MISSIONERS: yone.
ITEM N0. 3
Orange County Use Variance tJo. 5725 - Request for continued use
of an R-1 r~sidence for a real estate office; property located
at the southwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Stoneybrook Urive.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented Oranqe County Use Variance No. 5725, noting
the location of subject property, present zoning, the date when the original use for the
real estaie o:fice was established, and the recommendations of the staff.
lliscussion was heid by the Commission regardin~ the method used by the County in establish-
iny commercial uses in residential structures for those properties along Brookhurst Street,
anu ihe practice of the City in requiring rezoning of properties which were proposed for
commercial uses.
~i~~
~
~
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange
County Planning Commission be urge,i to consider requiring reclassification of properties
which are proposed for commercial tses, such as requested in Orange County Use Variance
No. 5725, to the appropriate commercial zone. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
F:.= :
~
MINUTES, ~ITY PLANNING COMfdISSIOId, May 9, 1966 3039
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 4
RECOMMENDATIONS Orange County Tentaiive Map of Tract No. 5058 - Revision No. 3.
(Continued) Developer: Men-Mo, Incorporated, P. 0. Box 2036, 114 North
McPherson Boulevard, E1 Modena, California. Engineer: McDaniel
Engineering Company, 222 Ea;~ Lincoln P.venue, Anaheim, California.
Subject tract located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road,
approximately 2,000 feet east of Imperial Highway and containing
aqproximately 17 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 03 R-1,
One-Family Residentialy Zoned lots.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson advised the Commission that under Reports and
Recommendations the Interdepartmental Committee recommendations were no longer applicable
i~ si.^.ce *_h? ?noineer of the proposed tract had contacted the staff and had indicated tnat
"~ because of access problems for subject tract, any recommendatzons the Commission might
' have to make to th~ Orange County Planning Commission snould be withheld until these
access probl=ms were resolved, and a request for a two-weeks' continuance was also asked
at the same time.
~~; Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue consideration of Orange County Tentative
Map of Tract No. 5058, P,evision ~o. 3, to the meeting of May 23, 1966, in order to allow
_ the engineer of the proposed tract time to resolve access problems. Commis=_ioner Mungall
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEp.
I .
ITE~d tJO. 5
Trailers stored on residential lots - consideration of
public hearing.
The Commission Secretary advised the Commission that Leput;• City Attorney r'urman Roberts
had requested consideration of the Commission setting for F,~blic hearinq "trailers stored
on residential lots"; that an original date o~ June 6, 1966, had been schedul~d - however
N1*. Roberts had requested a change of date to June 20, 1966.
Commissioner Rov+land offered a motion to direct the Planning Cor.unission Secretary to set
for public hearing consideration of the storage of trailers on residential lots for the
meeting of June 20, 1966. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. h10TIUN CARRIED.
~
~! `~
~,~ ~
----- .
._.._,~ _ ,, -._-.~..
~ .,
~ ,
MIPIUTES, CITY PLA~:NING COMMISSION, May 9, 1966 3040
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 6
RECOMMENDATIONS Hill and Canyon General Plan: Staff review oi Lusk Corporation
(Continued) proposal for said area dated April 26, 1966.
Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski reviewed for the Commission a study made by the
staff of the Lusk Corporation report on the Hill and Canyon General Plan as follows:
On February 8, 1966, at the first Anaheim City Council hearing on the proposed
Hill and Canyon General Plan, the Lusk Corporation requested a 60-day contin-
uance to allow time for a precise review and comparison by Lusk Corporation of
the density proposals for the Nohl Ranch portion of the Plan as presented, and
as originally conceived. The City Council granted the reque=ted continuance
and subsequently Lusk Corporation has completed their revie~+ and comparison.
On February 20, 1966, Lusk Corporation representatives met with the Pian~ing
Staff to discuss their findin9s, conclusions, and differences of opinion.
The following ±hree main items resulted from this meeting.
1. In comparing the total dwelling ur.it projections (prepared by Planning Staff)
~ versus the expected dwelliny unit yields (prepared by Lusk Corporation) for the
Nohi Ranch portion of the Plan, only .6 pe:cent difference was noted. This
'i; does represent a precise degree of accuracy in projection. However, it should
be remembered that the dwelling unit totals are comprised of separate develop-
~ ment tributary areas and ther.e are projected differences (per tributary area)
~, as high as 210 dwelling units. These differences and the subsequent impact upon
public facilities should be examined by the Planning Staff and documented for
City Council and Planning Commission review.
2. In achieving the dwelling unit yields indicated for the Nohl Ranch, the
Lusk Corporation propose~ to utilize a majority of single-family subdivisions,
with average 10,000 square foot lot sizes, and dispersed concentrations of
multiple-family developments of density no higher thhn % dwel2ing units per
acre.
At the inception of the Hill and Canyon General Plan, the dwelling unit pro-
jections anticipated single-family subdivisions of 10,000, 20,000, and 40,000
average lot sizes.
- f The resent Lusk
_ P proposal represents an emphasis on average 10,000 sq~ _a foot
lots and could be considered an un-offensive deviation from the original devel-
opment concept. Although there appears to be no objection to ihe change at
this time, the City Council may wish to have the Planning Commission review
and comment on the proposal.
~'_} ~
3. In achievin~ the dwelling unit totals, the Lusk Corporation utilizes
': acreage which has he:etofore been excluded from residential use: namely,
` the park, golf course, or country club in the canyon below the 'Nalnut
I. Canyon Reservoir. It is Staff understanding that Idr. fJohl (and the Lusk
~ Corporation) ~lesires the flexibility in the Plan which would a11ow them
i to utilize this 170 - 200 acres of land for residential use if futur.a
economic situations indicate they should do so.
Residential use of total 170 acres could produce 600 plus dwelling units
which might put an unexpected burden on public facilities if not foreseen
at this time. In addit?on, the community would be sacrificin9 a beautiful
` natural resource which miyht better be used for open sp~ce. This should
be examined.
i
~ Due to the unique physical position anc: uutstanding character of the golf
i course or park property, the City Cour~ci] and Planning Commission may wish
to give serious consideration to establis~:ing a policy for its future use.
I Due to the:
1. ;~rojected dwelling unit differences per tributary area,
2. Development concept change,
, 3. Probable use of the Walnut Canyon Golf Course or special park
' the ~lanning Staff sugges~ed that the Lusk proposal be referred to the Planning
~'~ Commission for Report and Recommendation. The City Council Hearing was con-
~ ~ tinued until May 24, 1966, and the Lusk proposal referred to the Planning
Commission.
E
;i ~~
'~ ~
~~'
- ~u :
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CpMA4ISSI0N, May 9, 1966
3041
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 6(Continued)
The Planning Staff has reviewed three items they felt needed additional
study. Findings are as follows:
1. Proiected dwellin unit differences er tributar a:ea
In reviewing the per tributary area differences, Staff feels that public
racilities (schools, parks, roads, sewers, etc.) and non-public facilities
(shopping cen}ers) can be provided as development progresses. It should be
re~a~led that the total dwelling unit projections done by both Lusk and the
Ci~y were so close that there is no need for additional public or non-public
facilities. Consequently, the provision of facilities can be phased to
coincide with development.
2. Development concept chanqe
Although the emphasis on 10,000 square :oot lot subdivisions with d•.s-
persed concentrations of mul':i-family concentration (density - 7 acre) does
appear to be a deviation frum the slope analysis, it does not create a
public facilities demand problem because the total dwelling unit yield is
the same. It is recognized that as development progresses a certain amount
of earth movement is necessary to create the 10,000 square foot home sites.
It can only be hoped that this movement will be kept to a minimum in order
to preserve, as much as po;sible, the character of the hills. Staff feels
that the Lusk Corporation is aware of this and will do everything in their
power to preserve the rolling terrain of the hill and canyon area.
3. Probable use of tha Walnut Can or, Go1: Course or S ecial Park
Of the three items reviewed, the use of the Golf Course for single-family
homesites would have the greatest impa~t. The question ~vir. Nohl and the
Lusk Corporation poses is ~ne of sufficient size of utility lines to accom-
modate the singie-family hoR,es anri give them flexibility of choice of
develcpment at some futur.? date. P.s previously noted, this could mean an
additional 630 homes or a population of 2100 plus persons demanding services.
A detailed study by Engineering Division, Hydraulic Section, revealed
sufficient capacity in the main trunks and s~~b-trunk lines of the Master
P:an of Sewers to accommodate the proposed population. I'he laterals could
be sized as development progressed.
Water lines from the reservoir have suffici?nt capacity tu orovide more
than enough water. However, if at a later datP the total 630 homes were to
bC constructed and the community v,~s agreeab~e to the proposal, the Hill ano
Canyon General Plan would have ;.n ~~ a^~e~ded to:
a. Recla,sify the Collecto: Higtiwa}• along N~ohler Drive to a
Secondary Highway (result of discussions Nith Traffic
Enqineer)
b. Reflect student demand for at least one more K-3, Satellite
Elementary School.
c. Reflect a demand for at least two additional acres of park
land for the nearest community park.
~.} r
~~ -
'~; ~
:~ ~
The above discussion has centered around the statistical mechanics of
the Plan. Perhaps ihe paramount problem is one which can not be solved
statistically; i.e. preservation of a beautiful, natuial asset to the com-
murity, namely the Walnut Canyon area below the Walnut ~anyon Drive. The
Lusk Corporation stzff has documented their belief in "i~~aintaining the
natuial beauty of Vdalnut Canyon". We can only assume (fro~n this comment)
that they would seriously meditate before tccally oblit:erating the natural
beauty of this area and, in fact, would ultimately pre:er to retain it as
a form of open space.
il,
., -~~.:~. . ,.,~~.~,~
. _ _:, ~
) i
MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 9, 1966 3(i42
R~i'ORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 6(Centinued)
Recommendations to Citv Council
1. Inform Mr. Nohl and Lusk Corporation that the utility lines have sufficient
capacity to accommodate single-far.iily usage of tt,~ golf course in Walnut Canyon.
2. That at this time t`~c Hili and Canyon ~rneral Plan be adopted as previously
recommended by the Pla~~ning G'ommission.
3. That the City re-empha~ize their desire to preserve beautifui, natural
~ommunity assets, such as Walnut Canyon, a~d further encourage hir. Nohl and
the Lusk Corporation to plan any develop~,.~rc i~ Walnut Canyon around the
p*eservation of this r.atural beauty.
M~. Grudzinski further clarif~ed ~h., three items which the s~afi had felt r•.eeded add~~ional
st~~dy by answering var?,:us questions by the Commission.
AdJitional disc~:sion was hel-~ by the Comrnission, summarized as f_•~'•ows:
1. Whether or not water and se~v~: facilitizs would be aue~~~ate if t:~e ds•.~eioper proposed
a change in concept irom low to n'~h density development.
2. Inference that there was a possibility that the develc~er wouid eventually develop the
proposed golf course for residential purposP~, sincs the stafr stated "probdble use of
the land for r?sicen~ial purposes".
3: Retentiun of the property in the vicini'y ::f the Walnut (' nyon reservoir for a
recreational-natural area similar to Irvine Park.
4. Possible danger to !~omes and people from possible earth sline;~„3nd breaks in the
reservoir, i; the properties now projected :or a golf course are developed for
residential uses, and iu^ther, the possible damage suits the C:ity ;~;i~ht face.
5. Whether or not the City could indicate b;~ zoniny certain areas for a green belt.
6. Flow ~f water around the area of the reservoir.
7. Development of the Nohl ranch bei.ng started d~o~nd the periphery of the ranch with
later development toward the interior.
8. lNhether ~~ not *he lan~i now designated as golf co~rse and developed as suc`~ should
prove ~oo ex,~.er;?ve ~, _u~h, thus s~'~stantiating the rea=_on for conversion of the
property to lov+ density homes.
9. Areas design~:ted on t~~e P1an for park sites, and whe~.'r r or r,ot these would be
adequate tn provi.de for ;:he addi'•.iunai populatic~ i.f the golr course developed
as homes.
10. Possibility of recomm:nding to the City Council a;,d the Orange Gounty 5oard of
Supervisors, consideration of the prc}~~rty now designated on the Plan as a qo:;
course for a regional County park, thus retaining the natura: beauty of a priority
area, which would be serving a two-fcld puroose, namely wat=: storage area s~ar-
rounded with a recreational orea simil2r to Irvir:e Park and elimination o~ a
potential danger area, i.e., homes in ti:e downwash of a reservoir, by retdiriing
the natural beauty of the property.
11. Need for similar facilities as are available at Irvine Park.
12. The General Plan represents anticipated land uses foi• .':~ ar~=, and +.he prr~sent
thinking of the City which should be in printed torm on tF,e do~;uments given to
the general public, so that no misinterpretalir. may F,e made, sincr~ the General
Plan does not represent a zoning map, and as sucl: migi~t be su!:ject to changes
in both public and private facilities.
i3. Protection to the potential homeowner who may purchase a home ~r. the assumption
- that the golf course recreation area designation would rF~„ain; however, the
~~~ developer, if economics warrant it, would develop the pr•~perty for iumes, thi~s
:~ depriving these homeowners of a recreational facility.
J .
i ~
~ ~ .
~
• ~~
WiNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 9, 7°h~ 3043
RE?Okr5 AND RECOM~AENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 5 l'~ontinue~~ ,
1. °estrictir.g a p:;operty t~wner as to what use he can place on his property being
~antamount to saying tr~e City was in a posit~on to purc:iase the property, whereas
there was no knowledge that the City nad budgeted fcr a~ny purchase of land in the
Walnut Canyon area for a Fark.
AL the conclusion of the discussion by the CoR~mission, the only add~t~o~~al recommendation
made to that prtisented by the staff was ~~ recommend to tF.e Cit,y Council that the County
consider the "gre~:~i belt" ar~a designated as a golf course on the Hill anc; C?nyon General
Plan as a County reqional park to preserve~ the nataral beauty of the area anu ~vide
park facilities sin:~.ar to that at Irvine Park.
Commissioner Herbst offered a m~'ti„r~ to r=..ammenc' l:. +!;o City Council that at this ~ime
the Hill and Canyon General P;a;~ b: ac'.cpted as ,~~~ev~o~,sly :Pcommended by the Planning
Cortur,:ssi~n; that tha City Couns~. ~nicrn: Mr. Louis Nohl and '.he i::sK Corpc.ration ~hat
the uti:ity lines nave sufiicienl capacity to accommodate sin~!e-fami.]y ~se of the ~olf
course in Walnut Canyon; that the City sho~~ld re-emphasize their de~ire to preserve its
beau±iful, natural community a~sets, such as Walnut Canyon and, furtt~er, *„ encourage
fvir. Nc~11 and tha Lusk Corporation a plan any ;ievelopment in the W<Im.t ~,~nyon around
the preservati.on of this natural be.:uty; and that the ^~.ty Cou~cil is u.r;;:d to recommend
to the ~iano~ r_.n,inty Board of Supervisors that coi:side. tion be given ~,o the area arounc
t:~e Wair~t Canyon resf~rvoir as a Cc,unt~ reginnal ~:arn; in order that che natural beauty
of tne ,3rea may be rats:.~ed as it is maintair.ed at Irvi:~e Park. Cum~nissioner Mungall
secondecl the motioro M~TIUN CAR4IF.ll.
- There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Mungall
of:~red a motion to ~djovrn the mee~iny. Coinmissioner Allred
seconde~ the motiori. Ah.~TION CARRIED.
_L~~^/ ~u~L _.
ANN KREBS, Se:-retary
Anaheim C:ty Pla~ning Commissicn
~
r. • - ~
~ ~?
R
~