Minutes-PC 1968/08/26~
s. .::: '.,
q .~p~ . ,~ '~,t .~ ~R'VI ~ ~ ~ ~ d. .. ~
Y M~CM w ~ ~ S "~ r X ~ .r
+v~ w t r r ~eY ~1 ~ ,~' ~~
1~,
1
~ ~ ~~
~~
~
z
. , . . . . __ . _ _ . "" '_^__'__...__.__ _.-
. . . . . . . . ~ .
.
.:, . '4
:..;~
~
~~ ~~ ~~
~ LV
~
:
City FIall ~
y -
Anaheim, California ~j ;
August 26, 1968 ' ' -~_ .;
~
#
A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE ANAI~IM pITp pLANNING COI~IISSION ~
REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Ansheim City Planning Commisaion wae called
to order by Chairman A11red at 2:00 o~clock P.M,, a quorum being
preaent.
PRFSENT - CHAIRMAN: A11red.
- COMMISSIONF.1?.S: Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland.
ABSENT - C02~IISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst.
PRESIIdT - Asaiatant Development Servicea Director: Robert Mickelson
Aeaistant City Attorney: Allan Watts
Office Engineer: Arthur Daw
Zoning Supervieor: Ronald Thompaon
Aeaiatant Zoning Supervisor: Pat Brown
Planning Commisaion Secretary: Ann ILreba
INVOCATION - Reverend 0. L. Underwood, Paetor of Anaheim Fourpqu~e Church, gave
the invocat~on.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commisaioner Gauer led in the Pledge o£ Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROYAL OF
THE MA`NTES - Minutea of the meeting of August 12, 1968 were approved as su~itted,
on motion by Commiaeioner Gauer, aeconded by Commisaiotter Mungall,
and MOTION CARRIED.
~~„~ CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINOID PUBLIC HEARINCr, MILTON E. JOHNSON, 1011 Louise Street, Saata
i t=v' PER+~ST N0. 1052 Ana, Cali£ornia, Owner; requeating permiaeioa to OPERATE A TRTJCKING YARD
+ w'~ AND TEeM'rNaT. WITH RELATED AIITO AND TRUCK OVERHAtfLING AND REPAIR FACILI-
n~~" TIES, WITH WAIYERS OF (1) RDQIIIRED MASONRY WALL AND (2) ENCIASIIRE OF
~~` OUTDOOR STO~2AGE AREAS"on property deacribed ea: A triangularly ahaped parcel of approxi-
;~ mate].,q 2.2 acrea of land liaving frontagee of approximately 83 feet on the aouth aide of
Santa Ana Street, approximately /~10 feet on the east aide of Walnut Street, and approxi-
r'~~ mately 430 feet on the weat aide of Manchester AvenuQ. Property preaently claeeified
~i;,; M-l, LIGHT ~NWSTRIAL, ZONE.
~~: Subject peti~tion was continued from the meeting of August 12, 1968, to allow the ataff
~ time to make aound lenel teste of the trucking operation relative to ita ~ffeet on the
,;,' aingle-family rssidetttial area locatad south of and ad3acent to aub~ect property.
;~ "Asaistant Zoning Suparvisor Pat Brown ravi.ewed the locatiott of aubject property, the
'';~ requeated use, and the resulta of the aound teata made by the etaff on the evening of
August 19, 1968. The balance of the Report to the Commisaion wae also.reviewed by
~;~ Mr. Brown, and upon ita concluaion, noted that the petitioner had sut~itted a letter
:~:z requesting continuance of aubject petitiott until the meeting of September ll, 1968,
`rz becauae neither he nor the owner of tha trucking Yirm would be able to appear before
,;,':~ the Co~iaeion to answer questiona.
~:~
Co~isaioner Farano offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Uae Pexmit
;i~~ No. 10$2 to the meeting of September 11; 19E33, as requeated by the petitioner.
~~ Commisaioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
;~
VARIANCE 1Q0. '200 - CONTIPJ[TID PUBLIC HF,ARZNG. GALIFORIJIA FEDERAL SAVINGS & IAAN ASSOCIA-
TIOiV, 5670 Wilehire Boulevard, Los Angel~s, California, Owner;
COVINGTON BROS. 60NSTRUCTION COMPANY,' 251,,7. East Orangethorpe Avenue,
F~llertna, Ca].iPorni.a, Agent; rbqueating WAIVERS OF (1) RF7QUIRID WALL ADJACENT TO R-A
ZONID~PROFERTY; (2) MINIMQM'N[TMgER OF COVERED'PARKING SPACFS, (3) MINIMUM iTNIT FIAOR
A~~ ~4) ~ WALL HEIGHT WITHIN FAANT SETBACS AREA, AND ~5) MINIMDM STRQCTITRAL
SETBACK, TO ESTASIISH A!,$ UDTIT APARa~ENT C0t+1PLE% on property deacribed as: A rectangularly
ahaped parcel of land located on the north side of I,incoln Avenue and having a frontage of
approx3mately 475 ~eet on the north aide o£ Lincoln Avenus and a maxim~ depth of approxi-
mately 163 feet, the easterly boundary of aubject property being approximately 870 feet
407~
i
;' ::,s
s
~ . ``: ~q.s.
/'} ~ ii ..~ ....i' r ai ~;
~ s
~:.;::.
t.,.
;;:,
~ ;.,.
i: :
U
~~ ~.~ ~
MIN[TTES, CIT3C PLANNING COMMISSION, 9uguat 26, 1968 4p~g
VARIANCE 7J0. 200 - weat of the centerline of Magnolia ~venue~ Propert,v presently
Continue~ claseified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of guguat 12, 1968 in order to a11ow the
applicant ti~e to sumnit reviaed plana which would reflect a reduction in the number of
waivera~requested~ proviaion of adequate circulaiiott, reviaed design of the development
in order that carporta would not face Lincoln Avenue, attd additional screening.
Asaiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of eub3ect property and the
propoaed requeat, noting that the ravised plane submitted by the petitioner indicated
little change in the original concept as reviewed by the Co~isaion at the previoua meet-
iag; that open carporta etill far„ed Lincoln Avanue; that tha Code-required screening of
open carporta facing•public rights-of-way were atill indicated as be9.ng ouly a!~2-inch
maeoaty wall;that approximately half of the required conered parking was still proposed to be
uncovered; that two acceoeways were still ahown - one to Lincoln 9venue and one to the
propoaed cul-de-sac atreet between the two parcels - however, the propoeed arcade-like
architectural atructure in the centar of eaeh parcel~s parking area had been modified to
allow a'vehi~cular throughway, which would provide continuous circulation through the park-
ing area; that a aix-foot land~scaped area adjacent to the highway right-of-way line was
now proposed, where previously a three-£oot landscaped etrip wsa propoaed, with open parking
to the rear - while the Council policy for requirements on Lincoln Avenue were a 35-foot
building aetback with a 20-foot landscape strip required in the R-3 Zone; that the petitioner
was atill proposing 1,$ unita, with 16 of these units being 408 square feet as compared to the
original platt of lN25 aquare feet; and that the aix-foot masonry wa7.1 was atill propoaed to
be is~cated wi'thin the 15-foot aetback area ad~acent to the propoaed cul-de-sac street.
Furthermore, while the total number of waivers from the Code had beexi reduced to five, the
two that were eliminated were of a minor or technical nature - therefore the Planning
Coa~isaion would have to determine whether the design, which was basically the same as
that originally proposed, was appropriate in relatioxi to both the Council policy for Lincoln
Avenue and the aite development standbrds of the R-3 Zons.
Mr. Gared S~ith, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commisaion and raviewed the
previous Co~i.ssion and Council action on Variance No. 1973 regarding sub~ect propertq;
that at the Council hearing they recommended a lesaer density, with the setback along
Lincoln Avenue to be 35 feet; that the reviaions on aubject petitiott might seem to be
technical, but the floor plans had been changed and the development was within the aetback
of the sides and rear; that ;he property was bounded by the Edison easement on the weat
and a 100-foot wide, R-A parcel which abutted the floor control channel on the east; that
the mini.mum covered parking area was in keeping with another project approved by the City
on Pampus Lane regarding parking requirements of aingle unita, and in this pro~ect it was
proposed to have 1-1i3 parkixig apacas - one-half would be covered and the other half un-
covered; and tkuit the mini.mum uni~. floor ax~ea was aimilar to the previoua request made
for bachelor-type uniis,
Commisaioner Gauer left the Gouncil Chsmber at 2:20 P.M.
Mr. Smith then noted that the wall height within the £ront setback was a technical one
bscause sub~ect property was on a cul-de-sac and would nct infringe on anyone since the
property to the north wsa under the jurisdictionof the petitioner, and the 6-foot masonry
wall was necessary to provide for private patios adjacent to the cul-de-sac street; that
the ma~or problem under conaideration was the fact that carports were opening to the front
on Lincoln Avenue, and redesiga was very difficult although additional lattdscaping was pro-
posad, and the carpota would be architecturally treated with arched entrances and in keep--
ing with the Spattiah architecture; and that the interior of the carports would be completely
finished witb Spanieh atucco.
Co~isaioner Gauer returned to the Council Chamber at 2:22 P.M.
Mr: 9mith aiso aorted tha~t in•order to acxeen the parkiag area from vieu of the atreet, a
42-inch wall was provided, and the landacaping had been increased from 3 feet to 6 feet
in the front setbaek, with some ornamental iron along the wa11. However, it wa~ not felt
the requested waivers were not within the realm of being granted aince they were not asking
for something not g.anted previously along Lincoln Avenue, and every type of development
imaginable was developed along Lincoln Avenue, which included parkiag for s multiple-family
development i~ediately ad~acent to the property line, and a recent apartment development
had carports Yacing Lincoln 9venue - even though it was 150 feat from the street, the com-
mercial property was not present,~y developed attd the carports did face Lincoln Avenue, said
carports having no architectural treatment whatsoever. Also, a ahopping center had recently
resurfaced their parking facilitiea and no landscaping was provided; that most oF the property
elong Lincoln Avenue was devs~lopEd for parking in the front satback, and there was not a
groat deal of differettce betw*een cars parked for commercial purpoaes and for residential use.
t
~ ~
~ ~
. -y.~ ~..
,t , _
V Y' F tt~ Y
._ 4;~,,t~.t.:! ,~ ...7..e~ ,r:.r~,y~,: .~ ~,?~~. . .., .. .,.
~j~.~Tn~S- t ~L5'_F~ 1~' ,~ ~++ Y C
. x
z~
s h
•
r i Il' ^~4 ": , i L~~ t .~ 1 y'~n~ "~~y. ~`~'~ ~~
~ ;`
d
^'+
L
~ Y'^ ~~+a ~.F G
r
r ., a~ '~' { `i. r+.~ .- -•, t ~
_-.~.vy,~
, :
-
•~
~ ~
1
r
c /
~
N,
n"
~f
l'. fl' ~ f
'
.
; }
f
^'a {3
r t ~+
i
g
b f
+~
:~
v,
I
t
,
. ~
~ ~
/
~ i"" '_ `
;: r~
c~ O J ~ ~
,~
~
- .~
MI ~TES, CITY PLANNING COI~IISSION, August 26, 19b8 4079
VARIANCE N0. 200 - No one agpeared in oppoaition to eubject petition.
(;Continued
i TFIE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Co~ission, in diecussing•the varioua requeata made under eub3ect petition, noted
that the ma~ority of the multiple-family developmente were being aulamitted without adher-
ing to the R-3.etendards establiahed in the zone, and if waivera were conatantly granted,
tliis.would negate the aite•development atandarda of the zone; that developera ahould
attemgt in every way.poesible to deaign`the developmenta in accordance with the zone since
a,variance fram the Code ehould'•be grante$ only in inatancea where an extreme hardahip had
~ been proven due to the aize and shape of the parcel; that waivar of the minimum aize of a
uhit ahould be carefully _conaidered and studiea made in order to determine the validity of
the n~ber of requeata received for so-called "bnchelor unite" - however, these waYvers
should aot be approned under the R-3 Code, but ahould be atudied in detail and conaidered
at public hearinga for amenc~enta to the Code; that although the Commisaion may have
approved some developments in the past, there was no evidence of justification to compound
the errora that were made; xnd tlmt the minimum requirement of 700 square feet per unit
had been adopted after considerable public hearing had been held by the Co~ieaion.
Commisaioner Farano inquirad of the ataff what the philoeophy and theory of covered parking
$pacea in the Rr-3 Zone were and why it wr~a lesa deairable to have uncovered in lieu of
eovered parking apacea while other usea in the area had uncovered parking apaces.
2oning Supervisor Rattald Thompaon adviaed the Commisaion that the R-3 Zone once required
gara.gea; h~wever, the residents of the apartments were ueing the atreets - that covered
parkiug would provide a better type of parking, and the Co~ission in approving carporta
had required atorage space in the carports aince it was felt there should be aome type of
covared parking in reaidential uses of property.
~Co~isaioner Farano then inquired whether hiatory and the City~a experience had proven that
carpo~ts was a wiae change - were the people now using the carports more tl~an they had used
the garegea-einca he £elt to require the expenditure of covered carports when they were not
~ei.ng used was asaesaing an expenditure on the developer when open parking spaces would
6erve the same purpoae.
M.r. Thompson noted tha.t when th~ R-3 Zone was mocltfied, parking rras required to be within
a apecif'ic dista.nce from apartments; however, formerly when developera located their park-
ing faczlities, many of them were so far from the units that atreet parking wae more
desirabla, and with the mod3.fication of the Code for covered parking apacee, the parking
areas were much better located, and many more people were uaing their carporta - however,
with many familiea having a minimum of one, and posaible two cara, the required parking
under the Code did not provide for this additional emount of vehiclea.
Mr. Smith,~in reaponae to'Commisaion queationing, noted that the single units would be
furniahed, and the carporta proposed were being asaigned to the two-bedroom units.
Commisaioner Farano then noted that if rraiver of the minimum required square footage for
unite was permitted to provide £or single or bachelor-type units, these smaller unita
would not hava the necesaity for collecting bab~ criba, etc., and would live there for
only a ehort time, while those living in the larger apartments would have a tendency to
eollect iteme that must be stored, as families uaually do.
Commisaioner Rowland noted that while the Co~iesion in the past had granted variancee £or
some relief of hardahip, variancea approved would normally affect only 10~ to 15~ o£ the
ordinance; however, he did not feel waiver of over 50~ from the aite development atandards
wae appropriate, and iF the Commisaion deteffiined the aite danelopment atandards of the
R-3 Zone ahould be reviaed, this ahould be done through a meana of reaerves and reaourcea
at:the comman4 of the Coammiasion :~ be conaidered at public ~earing, rather than coneider-
ing waiver of,the Code for one piece of property, since no hardehip had been demonatrated
~'that eub3eet property cou].d not be developed within the confinea o£ the aite development
I atandardo of the R-3 Zone. ~rthermore, if parking atandards - after conaiderable atudy -
ahould be revised, more pa.king would be neceaeaxy tbrs lees, and then perhaps conaideration
might be given to a combination of uncovered parising apaces; however, t~ie was a community
, ef£ort and should bE considered at public heariag aince the last revia~on of the R-3
', ordina.nce was approximately three to four years ago.
Coa~issioner Farano concurred with Co~iseioner Rowland'a atatementa, noting that ~ith the
cottcept ~f 400 to 5C0-aquare foot unita in Anaheim - with the allegation made by the
petitioner thst there was a demand for thia type o£ unit - then the parking requirements
might also be conaidered differently.
~,~~, ~ r ;a ~
~ bn r
~;,~ ~,~ • - ~,~
~
„~
,~. ~ ,
,. t 4
}
tY M _
. ~ ~ ~
- ~ ~ ~ ~
.
~ :~~
~
~
J~w~.J
~
. , . . . ' . . ' ~ .~t%
`~~,
~
, ,
' MINtTTES, ' CITY PI.AIQNING CA~II$SION, Auguet 26, i968
4080 ;
r
`
f~<< :~. ,
,
,
<
~ j
~i
,'
-
VARIANCE•N0. 200 "- Co~ieeioner Rowland then noted the reaeon for the mini*m,m 700 equare
Coatinued) feet'w
`b '~
q
~,
,
~ t ~ ~.;
~i
+~r^a as
ecause the community had expreeaed a deaire through public
' .
`~
fi 1, hearing
to have bettar aurroundinge, and'the City former had
~ ~0- '~
i,
~~
~;e ~. ~ ~
Ni~l."5,tn ! T .t ~~. aqunre foot apartmenta which were deea:rc~ not to be adequa,te.
~ . .. . . . . . :.
•:
~, '?"~
`~,:;' ' sr
~x ~ Co~i.asioner Gauer offered Reao~.ution No. PC68-253 and moved for 3ta passage and adoption,
seconded by Co~saioner Rowland,to deny Petiti
n fo
V
i ri;
~ ' ~
a~'~~~; ,.
~''~{ o
r
ar
ance No. 2003 on tk~e baeis that
no hardehip was proven to grant the many ylaipera from the aita development atandards of tfie
R-3 Z
that
`
' "
s~ a`~ ''~
.- ~
j
y one;
approval of waivera
of
almoat 50~ of the requirements of the.aite develop-
ment atandarda'would eetabliah an undeei
ble' „~,,,~`
~,,..~
,
1 ra
precedent and would negate the purpoae of
these' ~atan'dards wkiich' were found to be desirable ia the City after
ublic h
i
t
.
'~
~' ~ 4 ~
,~ ~n
a~ ~f +; r,~i~s,
q~ ~•
r ~~ p
ear
ng;
hat
there was no evidence aubo~itted rovin a hardahi existed becauae of the size and ehape
P 8 p
of the parcel to warrant favorable conaideratioa of the waivera
that i~~^~
;; C{
'~„
,
~ '" ;
carporte opening to
a ma~or arterial
reaent
d
i
h : 4
;,
~
::
' p
e
an une
g
tly appearance to the many viaitors to the City, which
could be corrected iP th
e
RE~.
!
;
~
~ ; e p
titioner deeigned an integrated development utilizing the
property to the rea
w
~
~,
~
' i`' ;'
~ r sa
ell ae subject property for a more deairable development which
would be more in keeping with the R-3 %one requirements. (See Reaolution Book) ~
. .
~*.y
,~
r~
~ . . y
~
~
,,
~:
On roll call the foregoing reaolution was aseed
p by the following note: ;~
~ ''~~
~
-
t AYFS: COI~IISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Mungall, .Rowland~ A11red,
NOFS
C I
r~
`
~
:
OMMISSIONERS: None. ~
;:
;
•
K
~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbat. `'
.~y
r
' l
`~
~;
1dr.'S~ith adviaed the Co~iaeion that he would like to of~er hia aervicee in aeaiatittg
th
t
f£ ,
~,.~ ..
"~'~'
~
'
y
,:, ;
` ., ~ - e a
a
regarding a atuc~y on the type of ~acilitiea for bachelor apartments and open
parking epacea. y
~
'`~
r.
r { ~~
'~ `'~
1
~ • CONDITIONAL IISE - PUBLIC HEARING. WEST ANAIiEIM CHIT~,CH OF TI~ NAZARaTE, g ~ppppgpTlON,
PERNLCT N0
1056
11 S
~-~
#~ _
, .
~l .
5
outh Loara Street, Anaheim, California, O~,mer, REtTEp,F.ND D. E.
' REl~IO
D .r
- ~
N
1875 Weat Nutwood Place Anaheim Ca i
~ , , Lfornia, Agent; requesting ,y~
.s
~ ~' ~
~`~
' permisaion to EXf'AND E7QSTING CH[TRCH FACILITIES on ro ert described as:
A rectangularly ahaped parcel of approxtmatel
1
4 acr
e
£ l
g ~
~~} p'
~,=,,r~
Yt ~ ~ r y
.
e
o
and havi~
a frontage of approxi-
mately 176 feet on the west aide of Loara Street and a maximum depth of ap
i `~;.
~
,~ ,~ f~r~x,; y~
~ prox
mately 353
feet, the northerly boundary af esid parcel being approximately 220 feet eouth of the center-
li
f Te
m
3+~
~ ~,lr~_
.~ ~ ti p ; ~ ;q
ne o
d
ar 9venue, and f~~:rther deacribed ae 511 South Loara Street. Property preaentlq
claseified R-A
AGRICULTQR
9L
ZONE ,,~
~~~~~
+ ' `~~
~
a~
.~i ,
.
,
. ~ a;
,
~
~ !+
': ~~
Aaeiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed.the location of aub3ect property and the '
u
t
d {h
;~;„'
r~ 1`
~ ,~,~ req
ea
e
expanaion of the church facilitiea, noting that it wae previouely approved in
July of 1959, and all buildinga under that
it
h ~ ;:~-;
'" ",~, ;
F perm
s
ould have been built by 1961; however,
only two had been completed, and the propoeed platts before the Co~i
i ' ;',:;ti
'
;'?~
"
' se
on were reviaed
master plana which propoaed development of the church facilitiee over the next five to ten
I
il;;,?
5
4 yeara, with the fira~; phase being the £ellowahip hall and #.he echool building
to be etarted
~
~"
~ ,
very ahortly.
, ti
;~;,
~
', ~;
Reverend Donald RecLnond, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commiesion and noted
the propoeed exp~3.neion was to be develo
d i ~ ;;
`'
~
~ ~`~ pe
n several phases during the next £ive to ten
yeara, and was an impronement of the meater plan originall,y cottaidered by the Co~isaion
ainc
it
ld b `'
~ h,
:~,,~~+~ e
wou
esutify the area and afford some acreening to the residenta ad~acent to
aubject property. Furthermore, a maeonr~ wa].I would be conetructed b
th
d
l
~•!;
, y
e
eve
opers
adjacent to the aouth property line.
~, ~,:
i " ~t
h
r , ' ti,
No one sppeared im opposition ~t~ aub~ect petition.
~
` i
~
`"' ~ .~, ~ ~
~
~'
THE HEAffiNG WA5 CIASED. ~ ~ :
~~ '-~~
`
,
,
4~ {.1 w, y
` ~ V
~~' ^~
'~ . - ~ . . .
Commisaioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-2S4 ~d moved for ita paesage and adoption,
aeconded by Commisaione
G
t
~
~
e
~',~
~3~ ,,.
~
~ r
auer
o
, grant Pe':ition for Cottditional IIse Permit No. 1056,
anb ect to conditiona.
~ (See Resolution Book) ,;
F y~4 i
~
~~;~
""
. ~ . ~ . ~ . `
~
~~.i~ax On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the £ollowing vote:
~.x ,~ „ ; ~
# ~, ~~~ ;
~
'
AYFS: COMMISSIONEfiS: Farano, Cauer, Munrall, Rowland
Allred `
i,;,,~
~ ,
.
NOFS: COMMISSIONEE~;,: None.
s;
''
";~~
~ A T~
.k .:Li
, ABSIIIT: CONAfISSIONERS; Camp, Herbat.
. ~ . '
.
.
i
yC ~'~, :,~~{ ~ , ~ ~ .
e~ i~'*~~
* %
~ ~.
~ ~
, ~ ,
a r t .`~':
~
~ ~ .
Y
~
i r ~ c.
~r ~'
~i. . ~ . .
~
~ ~ ,
'
~
t ~ .
. . ;
A
~`~
~ y '
,
~~ ~
°
- _ _ R. ~ ,~;,~~~
>
'~-~;,..t.,.~~ j~~~ .. ui y. .S'+r. .~. e ~ ~ f u .~ ~'4.L~"~. . cl ~,),~" '~^ ` ~ ~' .y r ~ - + ''r x
Cy`"~i -"y. ~ ~ 7 ~ t. : ! 7 L .:r ~ h ~ ~ T ~~ ~1 '~ _,~' ~ ,~ ~ '~ ~~~~j7•: t S.~S':~s'~r ~:.'~i`~~i .'~T ~ ~~.''~3`~ "'~`~ a~°~y 4
t~ i.* w : 1,~E } p „~ , ~~' .~
) ~ Fd5 ~ '~„` . , . `- . . . . i .`_ f5 .
~ .. . ~ . . . . .. . , .
~,t~'.' ~. ~ , . . . . . . ~ . ' \ ~ . `:z'
~ . ~ ~ O ~ . . ~ ~ . ('~ ~ ; ,Gt
• ~'i ' t ~ ,
V " t.
a ?'r'~' ~IMTTF.S,, rITY~~PLANNING~COAR~IISSION, A11gi18ti 26~. 19C70 - /Og1. ..
~ ~+
~` ` RECL9SSIFICATION' -'.PIIBL•IC HEARING. MRS. CAROLINE LEWIS
3` , 408 18th Strset, Santa Monica,
~~ {; N0, 68-69=19 CaTifornig~ Owner; T& C HOMFS, P, 0 Box 338, Weatmineter, California,
, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly ahaped parcel of land
~ry ,:
~"~ ~ VARI~ATCE N0. 2008 located at.the aou~hweet corner o£ Orange 9venue and Bruce Street,
~;`r having Y'rontagea oF approximately lg9 feet on Orange Avenue and approxi-
M ~~ mately 230 feet on Bruce Street. Property presently c'!asaified R-A,
r~~iti t , AGRICUI,TITRAL, ZONE.
~ °x~ • . . . . . . .
`4~ j':i_, .~, ' . ' . . _. . . .
REQUESTED:¢LASSIFICATION: ; R-1, ONE-FANIILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
E>3 ~s'. ~
, Rk)QIIESTED VARIANCE:, jdAIVERS OF MINIMUM IAT WIDTfi AND MINIMIIM I,pT AREA.
'if~~; Asaiatant'Zoning Supervieor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub3ect property and the
e; ;~~ proposed requeet, noting that a eimi.lar requeat Yor R-1 zoning wsa approved in 1962 by
~:~~ the City Council - however, the aubdiviaion was for £our lota inatead of the preeent five,
and the proposed requeat would.appear to be conaistent with the exiating land use and zoning
~,~ aince aome o£ the adjoining lota to the west~ east, and south had been developed with 60 by
~ ~~ 110-foot lota, making them comparable to thoae propoaed.
:'z
'~ ~ Mr. Thomas Rusaell, agent for the petitioner, appeared be£ore the Coarmisaion, noting that
' he propoaed to conatruct five homea varying in aize fr~ 1625 aquare feet tb 1700 equare
~ feet, a.nd that he was available to answer queationa.
~ . ,F~
~-i,;i No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiona,
~+
i~' ~ S'_ '. Tf~ HEARING WAS CLOSED.
lk'
~~, ;y'~ Conmmiaeioner Mungall offered Reaolution No. PC66-255 and moved for ita passage and adoption,
~;~ secottded by Co~isaioner Gauer, to reco~end to the City Council that Petition for Reclasai-
~~,,.,;;[~ fication No. 68-69-19 be approved, aub3ect to conditiotta. (See Reaolution Book)
~,, .,:..,;,,~r~
.<i,;`;:;,::.
~"~'°`'~' On roll ca11 the foregoing reaolution was aseed
~`~''%~`x. p by the following vote:
~ ';~
''~'~`'' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano Gauer M
~~~~ -NOES: COI~IISSIONERS: None. ~ ' ~a~'~'' ROwlattd, Al7.red.
rM> ABSENT: CONII~2ISSIONERS: Camp, Herbet.
~~„
Commisaioner Rowland offered Reaolution No. PC68_256 and moved for its passage and adoption,
~qa~~~ aeconded by Gommiasioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2008, aubject to
' coraditiona. (See Reaolution Book)
~~~'' '^;~
~,a,f ,c~
~~ ~ On roll call the foregoing reaolution was paseed by the following vote:
~ ~+~~
L,~~:, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Faratto, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Allred.,
~,~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~' ~"~'~ ABSENT: C02~ffSSIONERS: Camp, Herbat.
ti ~~~~; ~ ~
ti' ~~~ Commi.saioner Rowland offered Reaolution rro. PC68-257 and moved for ita passage and adoption,
~.?,~1,,~ seconded bq Commiasioner Gauer, to reco~end to the City Council t~at Petition for Rsclassi-
}f r,..H fication No, 61-62-77 and Yariance No. 1l,l,l,.be termineted on the baeis that Reclasaification
+w~' No. 68-69-19 and Variance No. 2008 au eraeded the
~;~ P petitiona. (Sae Resolution Book)
~~7~' On roll call the fore oitt resolution was asaed
~~?;,;A:;1~ g g P by the following vote:
~,~:a ..e~.~,,
k~~y~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, A11red.
#' ~';:~ NOES: COMMISSIONERSc None.
ti~1~ „`~~ AHSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst,
>~
~ ~ .:b
i rji~",?' . . ~. . . ~ - ~ .
f4i9 . . ~ . ~ ~ . ~ .
'J~ik ~
~'~J1i~tr VARI9NGE N0, 2005~- PIIHLIC HEARING. BROORHURST SHOPPING CENTER, INC., 2z93 West Ball R,oad,
fi;~,;~4 Analieim, California, Owner; H. RALPH LOVETT, 4921 I?ur£ee Avenue, Pico
~'°~' Rivera, California, Agent; requeating permiasion to FSTABLISH A PARCEL
~~;4;~x ' OF LAND FOR k II. S. POST OFFICE NOT ABUTTING AT LEAST ONE PUBLIC STREET OR ALLEY on property
'~`~~~`~~:~ deacribed as:' An irregularly ahaped parcel of land located within the Brookhurat Shopping
$~Yr~alxs~ Center (northwest corner"of Ba11 Road and Brookhurat Street), approximately 840 feet weet o£
~~ry-~~y~ the centerline of Brookhurst Street and approximately 211 £eet north of the centerline of
~~~'~ Ball Road. Property preaently classified C-1, GN3~TERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
~ M
1~ T,~;l
",,;: Assistant Zoning Supervieor Pat Brown reviewed the location of aubject property and the
~,at}~*E proposed requeat, noting that the exi.sting II. S. Poat Office on sub'ect
r~r~ re laced ~ ~ p p S J property was to be
p by a new atructure• that aub ect ro ert was bounded on the wast by a eingle-
yti ~~' family`tract under the ~urisdiction of the County, multiple-family residential uaes to the
~
1t N '~
~ :
~t l. f': . , . .
~~ .V+~Q~i14 ~ .. .
i~._Y~7~~ .. . . . ~ ,
~
t
~
5~
r~
;~
'~~
',.2.,
~
~..~„
:~,
~~f
a
,i
;4~
';
~
i~
~
~ ~ .i~
;
t `
~~
~
- ~?~
~ ~~
T~
~~u. 1 ~ ~
~ ~ ~PtP R'M1 .._I~'~~r~v n ~.~ >~ ~ i I 'J' f,'~ ~ ~ ~,~c I ~. ~ 7 k 'k •. R 1 i ~
` -_.. 1 _
` .:I ~ ~ ~.~
`.) MIN[TTES, CITQ PI;ANNING CANIMISSION~ Auguat 26, 1968 4pg,~
V9FtIANCE N0.~200 •-: ~n•rth, and commercial usea to the east, ar:d single-:~mily and commercial
m
Continuad) uaes to the south; that aubject property wris reclasaified to the C-1
~:'",' Zone in June, 1962; that numeroua conditional uae permits and variances
had been coneidered and approved on aub3ect property - however, ttone was
pertinent to subject petition~ that the petitioner had submitted a parcel map for the sntire
;.,;r ahopping center, indicating~t3~a.t aubject lot was No. 9 of the 13 aeparate lota; that this
"~• parcel would be techn,ically landlocked aince it would not havs frontage on a public atrest
'~- or alley - however, the petitioner nad indicated that Parcel No~ 10, which ad~oined subject
`; property'to the south, had Prontage on the north side of Ba11 Road and wae part of the over-
"+• >_ s1T.ehoppfng center parking and circulation system; and.that by meana of a mutual easement
~~' ~' agreement~ accesa would be provided for the parcel in queatione Furthermore, the petitior~er
µ^`,~.;g~ indicated they were leasing the parcel to the Federal Government Por use ae a post office
~•,~, eite, and upon recommending to the petitioner that a parcel map indicating at least a 20-foot
~';;~, acceseway~for the;parcel to the Ball Road frontage ~e aubmittad with the parcel map to
r'',',;; eliminate the land'Tocked a~~tuation, the Federal Government had indicated to the properiy
Y owner that-fbr irts-~nrposss; -tiie' preeefftly aubmitted map was moat preferable - therefore the
~,~ Co~ieaion would have~to deiermine whetheT the mutual accesa easement through Parcel No. ld
met the intent'of the Cods and whethar the parcel map ahould be redasigned to ittdicate a
~;.; vehicular accesaway for Parcel No. 9 to Ball Road, which would provide frontage on the
-'~- atreet.
ti: Mr. Brown further noted that the Commieaion might wiah to diecusa with the petitioner ths
feasibility of redaveloping the parking areas of the entire center into conformance with
~ the aite development atandards of the C-1 Zone by ths aystematic inatallation of perimeter
k; and interior landsaaping.
`:ti; Mr. Brown further noted that the City Engineer had indicated they would ttot approve the
parcel map unlesa modified cul-de-sacs were provided at the terminua of the frontage road
"?a and Pandora Ians as required under Section 18.08.500, and in lieu of the inatallatiott of
~ the modifiad cul-de-saca at thia tima, a bond in an emount and f~rm satisfactorq to the
r ,ii~
City could be poeted.
Mr. Ralph Lovett, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Coarmiasion and noted that
the parcel map had been filed aince the Poat Office Department wae not deeirous of leaeing
a atriu of land for accesa, with the poat office being on one parcel and the accees on
another`parcel; that when the petition was submitted to the staff, it was pointed out the
various parking reatrictiona and modificatioas which aet aside certain areas for the
ahopping center for accesa and parking, and io require a different pattern for eubject
property could present, a problem. Furthermore, two items on the Report to the Commieaioa
were of concern to them~ namely, under Evaluation, No. 9, the diacusaion regarding comply-
ing with the site development standarda of the C-1 Zone with the inetallation of perimeter
and interi,or la.ndscaping - aince the developer of the ahopping center had planted the palm
irees around the perimeter of tha center some years ago,a~iplans were in the design atage to
redo the to~tal parking lot, with consideration being given to the landscaping, he requeated
that tne Commiseion not make thia a condition of approval of aub~ect petition aincehe would
be discueaing the plana in the very near future with the staff inembers, and that if neceasary,
th~aq would post a bond to aseure their good faith in landacaping the parking area; and,
secandly, regasding the Engineering finding relative to requiTing cul-de-saca on Pattdora
I,ane and the £rotttage road - that the shopping center was already developed at the time the
eubdiviaion was developed, and, therefore, the burden of cul-de-sacing ahould be a County
requirement of that residential development. Furthermore, the commercial parcel already
had an exiating masonry wall, and thia might mean a breakthroug'a oP thia masonry wall to
ga3n accees to the residential property to the west, and it was his feeling thie would
creste a hardahip and a purden on the petitioner to require the :nodified cul-de-eaca being
constructed aince the actual time of zoning of subject parcel wsa in 1955, with a number
of conditions which may never have been met - however, final zoning was accompliehed in
1962, but a number of buildinga had been constructed in 1955.
Of£ice Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commieaion that when the Gity required a modified
cu1-de-sac, thia would be lesa than the normal 50-foot radius and would be accompliahed
within the exiating atreet width, without any additional dedieat3on; that this would be a
requi~9ment of'the City Engineer in tha approval of the parcel map. Furthermore, they
had been attempting to a~ntact the County Road Department to determine whether thia modi-
fied cul-de-sac would be acc~,ptable and deairable by them, but to the present time hsd
been unable to resolve this probleme However, in the event the County Road Department
required it, unlesa waived. by the Commisaion or City Council, the modified cul-de-sac
would have to be developad.
Commissi.oner Rovland'noted that since this was s finding and not a reco~ended condition,
the Gommisaion would not be required to act on it and it was only preaented to the
Cou;su.ssion to be brought before the petitioner as a ~'inding.
,~
;;s~
F
~ri
.. F:
~... ~
~1"r ,~` ~` ~r
~ ~ ip 'p~'t` +~ a ~r'4~"~ '~ ~ J a.
's`IrA9 t l ~ n w ~ rt r ' ~
a ~y `r ~z , ~ ~
~ ,~ S ~: `~
~,9y
f ,~
~ ~ ~;r~,~l
k
^
~
~
~~`
~ ~r4
;~~, ~E ~ r ,* s __, ~.~ , + i c ~ ' ~ ~~
~~
~ ='6
~
i
~
r . .
\ •~S
~~ ~ C~ C~ ~~ j^
,
_r
x ;:
~" ,
~
~ MINQTES; CITY PLANNING COMAfISSION, Auguat 26, 1968 l~083 ''
f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^i
~ryr~' ;, VARIANCE N0.'200 - Zoning Supervisor Ronuid Thompson noted for the Commisaion that thie .
~s' ~
~~
~~ (Continued was a finding of the City Engineer, and the Commiasion might wiah to
~' 3*~°^~"~"*
~ reco~end to the City Eagineer that it conaiders it unneceesary to
Y~. construct modified cul-de-sacs at the terminus of the frontaga roafl
~"a~' ~' t, '
~
'~ and Pandora Lane aince theae were not within the 3uriadiction of the City of Anahei.m.
~ ~,3
.
~
»~1 j~ ~f ~ ..
~Yv,~- ~+~ :,
. .
Diacuseion wae••then held by the Commisaion regarding a finding relative to cul-de-sacs
. .~~1
f~";r~' being required outsid'e of the ~uriadiction of the City in a reaidential street which
"~~4;"~ti ' was not part of aub~ect property, and at its conclusion, it was determined that a finding
F
~~~ ,,
~''
~~ be made that the Commiesion conaidered it unnecessary to construct modifisd cul-de-saca at "
K?'
~ the'terminue of the frontage road and Pandora La.ne on ths basis that the atreeta propoaed '-~r
,
~ "n~'~~ to be cul-de-saced were not within the juriadiction of the City of Anaheim. `~~~
~F
t~' , ~ The Co~iaeiott further inquired as to what provisiona were going to be made relative to ~~ ~~
.~fr t
` additional landacaping for thia ehopping center; whereupon the agent stated that the internal ~
~~, ; °
"' landscaping would be aub3ect to further negotiation with the staff and poating of a bond to
d
el
f th
2~
f ?y
.:.,
5 U ev
op
o
e parking area
or landscaping, if the Commiseion so desired - however, sittce
3ti, ,` 'c:
the plane were atill in the planning atagE, he was unable to preaent them to the Commiasion, ,~
~t `'
' ~
1i and the lanc~acaping would be aimilar to that of the shopping center at Euclid Street and ~a
-
~ Katelle Avenue, which was owned by the petitioner. ~~
No one appeared in opposition to aubject petition.
r ~;, THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~
, ; ~,
,~ r; Co~iasioner Farano offered Reaolution No. PCG8-258 and moved for its passage aad adoption,
~` aeconded by Co~iaeioner Gauer, to grattt Petition £or Variance No. 2005, sub~ect to condi-
s;:~:
' '
~
tione and the finding that ths Commiasion conaidered it unnecessary to construct modified ~
~
t
'~ cul-de-eaca at the terminua of the frontage road and Pandora Lsue, on the basis that atreeta ~ "r~
r
:~ to be cul-de-saced were not within the juriadiction of the City o£ Anaheim and development
K ~ ~
%~ had occurred after the ahopping center was alreacLy under coxiatructioa, and a further finding
~hat altho
h a
b
t
t
h
d
1 '
~
~ ~~z , ug
u
jec
proper
a
y
a
5-year lease, it wae part o£ the existing shopping
'i ' ~; ,.;r~
~ ~
'
~s center,and frontage on a dedicated atreet ehould ba asaumed since parking would be within
the
v
ll
ki
f
hi
h 1
~
~ ,t
.~ o
era
par
ng area o
t
s a
opping center. (See Resolution Book) ;
~,et y ~~;~
,
~~~
~N;~.'~
On roll call the foregoing resolution wee passed by the following vote: ~
(
~ `'
~
~
~~~ ~~~ ;~i
AYES:, COi~SISSIONERS: Farano Gauer Mun a~a. ~wi~,a ai~ea.
> > ~ , , 1
~
f ~'~` ~r~
~' '~'
NOFS: COMMISSIONERS: None. ,
~
.
,~ A ,w~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst.
VARIANCE N0. 2006 - PTJBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM F. JAMFS, 1701 Dallas Drive, Anaheim, California,
Owner; LANGE INDUSTRIFS, INC., 1542 West E~bassy Street, Anaheim,
California, Agent; requeeting WAIVER OF THE MINIMUM RDQUIRED SIDE YARD
TO ESTABLISH AN EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROOM ADDITION AS A CONFORMING USE on property deacribed
as: A rectangularly ahaped lot having a frontage of appro~d.mately 72 feet on the weet side
of Dallas Drive and a maximum depth of approxi.mately 100 feet, the norther~y boundary of a~1d
lot being the Souihern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, and further described as 1701 Dallas
Drine. Property preaently classified R-l, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Asaistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of the prop~rty, the uses in
close proximity, and the ataff report, noting the waiver requeated and the fact that the
property was adjacAnt to the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, having a depth of
approximately 100 feet from a normal right-of-way; that the present owner had indicated
plaxis to construct a sma11, 5 by 18-foot room addition at the rear of the exiating, illegal
addition ::.~-.s.ch had been constructed prior to his purchase; that although the staff had
auggested 'che petitioner attempt to buy a 5-foot atrip from the Southern Pacific Railroad
properiy, the Southarn Pacific Railroad had indicated'they were not intereated in the sale
of this property at this time, and £urther had indicated they had no ob~ectioa to either
the exiating addition or the propoaed addition on the property in question - therefore, tha
Planning Commiasion would have to determine whether the existing and propoaed additiona
could be detrimental to any poesible £uture development of the railroad property.
Mre Clifford I,attge, agent for the petitioner, appeared beFore`the Co~ieaion and noted that
the existing room addition had beett constructed illegally some time ago; that becauae of the
4-foot t~bleweeds which blew into the petitioner'a property, he was attampting to add an
additional room in order to lesaen the fire hazard, although he had contacted the railroad
regarding removal of theae tumbleweeda which blew from the railroad property; and that upon
contact~i.ng the railroad, they were unable to obtain the 5-foot atrip of property, but the
railroad indicated they were not opposed to tha encroachment to the lot line.
~
i
,S
~
;
~ ',~ ~
~ ~
.
i
~~~~ '
r .,:
t ` ;7 - .
.<
; ~3'tr~'w ^:~r4u~s .~EE'( ~~ ~i+~-- Y' `~rt ,(f~t,~rrpa ~ ~ ~f^,,* c, ~,c` .
c~
~
: ;, r r i . i : ".? i '~ `--`,'~r_
' ~ `~
; r sti
MINt1TES, OITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Anguat 26, 1968
VARIANCE N0. 20 - No one appeased in oppoaition to aubject petitiott.
(Continued
~
~ ' n
~
~.
~
~
~ ~
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~
4~84
J Co~issiorier Mungall ofPered~Resolution No. PC6$-259 and moved for ite passage and adoption,
~' eeconded U~y'Commiasioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2006, unconditionally.
(See Reaolution Book)
' I On roll call the £oregoing reaolution wae psaeed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer,, Mungall, Rowland, Allred.
NOFS: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: C~IISSIONERS: Camp, Herbat.
S., .
, ..
VAR7:ANCE N0. 2010 - PIIBLIC HEARING. IiAR~1ANN CORPORATION, 109 South Harbor Boulevard,
llnaheim, California, Owner; PHILLIP QUARRE, 109 South H.arbor Boulevard,
Anaheim, California, Agent; requeating WAIVER OF PiINIl~fUM R~QUIRED
BUILDING SETBACK TU'FST7[SLIgg~AN INDQSTRIAL WAREHOUSE on property deacribed as: A triangularly
ahaped parc'e1: of Taric1 looate¢ aouth of the interaection of Adams Street and Manchester Avenue
and having approx3mate frontages of 210 feet on the weat aide of Mancheater Anenue and 179
feet on th8 esat eide of Adams Street, said parcel having a maximum depth of approximately
112 £eet. Property preaently clasaified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
Asaiatant Zoning Supervi.sor Pat Brown reviewed the locatior of subject property and the uaea
eetablished in cloae proximity, noting the requeat for waiver of the setback ad~acent to
Mancheater Avenue, based on the fact that if the required 50-foot aetback were impoaed,
this would virtually eliminate any poaeibility of developing the property which was a tri-
angularly ahaped parcel, and that adjoining propertiea on the east aide o£ Manchester Anenue
wera developed with 5-foot aetbacka. F~rthermore, the petitioner had indicated his willing-
nese to comply with all other requirements of the M-1 site development atandards.
Mr. Brown then noted that the City normally waived sidewa]1sa in induatrial areas, and if the
property owner ao deaired not to inatall aidewalks, a waiver requeat would have to be sub-
mitted to the City ~gineer; however, if no sidewalk waiver ware granted, the aidewalka
would.be required as part of the building permit.
Mr. Phillip Quarre, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commisaion attd indicated
they propoeed to conatruct a 3000-square foot induatrial building on the property; that the
existing £our unaigh~"L,y buildings would be removed, and the propoaed development would enhance
the.dalue of the area;•and that the building would be similar to that ttow in exietence on the
east eide of Manchester Avenue.
< ;~'
~~,,. Mr, N. H, Helton, 119 South Adama Street, appeared before the Coammiaeion in favor of aubject
~,~ petition and noted that a new building alreaclp exiated on the eaet aide of the streat and
rj; also on the weat eide of the street a 6000-square £oot warehouee wae developed, and because
of the size and ahape of the parcel, any improvement of the diareputable buildixiga now there
;, would be welcomed. Furthermore, any setback as required in the M-1 Zone would create a
,1.::a hardahip on the development of the property.
~1~ No one appeared in oppoaition to aub~ect petition.
;";~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
.'i; Conrmiseioner Farano offered Reaolution No. PC68-260 and moved for ita paeeage and adoption,
,.;,a seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2010 aub3ect to
:"'~: conditions. (See Reaolution Book) '
~ y•,r'a
'`~ On roll call the fore o
,~ g ing reaolution was pasaed by the following vote:
{ ~ ~;
~ •r~" AYFS: COhI~ffSSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Mungal],, RAwland, A7.].red.
r" ~rr NOES: CONA~CSSIONERS: None.
~ ~;~ ABSENT: COt~IISSIONERS: Camp, Herbat.
p,
e
r~:~~' ~ ~'~~~,~1
~:' .fi
,jESS~Y
q ~h,.r4,~.~`1 "°'~,::~'S W '~ yT^.d~'~ F ~:. 'S~ '~" ~' ~. s~~'~'? ~ r^e,M"' 'g°.:'. "-,5r 'a[~, cfi ..r x ~'~,'+ ~C ; ' +"
~~
.n ~j J S, y r _ m _
:.
r
c + ~ d
~ 'f
~
'
,i
~. . . . . . , - :
' ~ .
, .,
~
•,.; t .
.,.
` .~~~ .,
': - ,
,
r
. - ....:.~ ___'_._"_'__._'~. ~ ~
__.... __._._. .
. -_ .
:
n>,
~..
. ,.~
.:t!
., . ~ ~~ ~
~ ~'~
_ MIN[TTES, CITY PI~ANNING CONALiSSION Au
, guat zb, 1968 40g5 ':
.: RECLASSIFICATIDI~ - pIIBL2p HEARING, g$T9UR L. OSOWSKI, 623 North Aarbor Boulevard,
NO'. 68=69=22~ ' F"
i7
l
C
i
.
erton,
alifornia, Owner; JAMFS R. HOLLENHECK, 331 North Hart ••--
Place, Ftiillerton, California, Agent; property deacribed se: A
'VARZANCE•N0:'2009
recta.ngularJ,p shaped parcel of approximately .9 acrea, having a
;; frontage af approximately 100 feet on the west aide of Magnolia
Avenue and a mA~m„m depth of approximately 395 feet, the northerly
boundary of said parcel being apgroximately 460 feet south of the
centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Prouerty presently clasaified R-A ~
~. ' ,
AGRiCULT[TRAL, ZONE. ,r
~"
'~` ^
i~ REQIIESTID CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPL~FAI~ffLY RESIDINTIAI,, ZOI~E. ~.
~';' ',,
~
REQIIFSTED~~VA'1~1-NCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MA%Il~lUM BIIILDING HEIGHT (2) MINIM[JM DISTANCE ~
`
'
' BE4WEIN BIIILDINGS, (3) MA7CIMUM PERMITTID DISTANCE OF A LIVING ~'
~
;i
UDTIT•FR~I,A STANDARD STREET, AND (4) R~2UIRED WALIS, TO ,
ESTABLISH A TWO-STORY, 24-UNIT APAR~IENT COMPLEK.
'• ~eaietant Zotting Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location o£ aubject property, the ueea
eatablished itt cloae pror
imit
and th
.~ ,
y,
e propoea3 for the establiehment of a?,/~-unit apart-
ment complex with a denaity of approximately 34 unita per net ac
2
~
re on a
~-acre parcel.
Mr. Brown then noted tha.t the plana indicated a mini.mum 20-foot wide drive was being provided ~
along the north property line leading to th
it
e ma3or
y of the carporta to the rear of the ~
property; that in the opinion of the Interdepartmental Committee
the propoaed circulati
~
,
on
.:
and turn-around for fire and trash vehiclea would not be adequate, and that the petitioner ~
had indicated to the atafY that thea
~ e were basically concept plana, and he was willing to #
make any adjuatmenta necessary where ma~or problem areas
h
`
• suc
as this e~d.ated; that the ~
General Plan indicated low-medium denaity £or this area - however, in the recent multi
le-
f
il ~
'; p
am
y study completed by the ata£f of the Development Services Departmettt, aubject property ~
and propercies within thia getteral ar
a
l ,,,
~
~~
zl e
wou
d have a potential for medium denaity residea-
tial land uae, but the major isaue before the Commisaion would be the
roblem of
bt
i
i
~ ~
~~={ p
o
a
n
ng
adequate acceae and circulation to serve the Future reaidenta who would live in this area. i
Three alternatives were preaented to th
C
i
' j
~
i e
omm
asion as depicted in the Report to the
Commisaion: namely, allowing all o£ the narrow, deep parcels within this area to develo
~
ith i
di
,
:
} i' ~ i p
w
n
vidual patterns of acceae and circulation; to'develop an alley syatem of circula-
tion as preaented on h~chibit "A~~
~~j ; or develop a standard etreet syatem ea preaented on ~
Exhibit i~Bn
,
~ ,,%, k~ . . , . . . . . ' . . ~ ~ . .. . _
;. 4a
j Mr. Jamea Hollenbeck, agent £or the petitioner, appeared before the -0o~isaion and indicated i
he was available to answer queationa. i
, ~~ Mra. 0. S. Smith, 125 South Ma olia Avenue a
that if aub ect ~ , PPeared before the Commiesion and indicated
~ petition were oonaid
d
ere
favorably, ahe would request that a 6-foot masonry
wall be conetructed prior to any gradi,ng or conatruction on th
b
e property
ecauae of the
conaiderable amount of dirt and noiae.which would emanate from auch an operation.
'
''~' Zoni.ng Supervisor Ronald Thompaon noted that in previoua inatancsa where multiple-family
development was proposed adjacent to R
A
: -
parcels, the required 6-foot msaonry wa11 uras
waived or a bond posted, being a technicality on the basis that the General Plan indicated
the area,which included the property under
id
,;;
F
~ cona
eration and, the S~ith property, for multiple-
family reaidential use - therefore the Coa~iasion would have to determine if th
t
;
:, e requea
for
a msaonry wall were appropriats.
-
Coneider~ble diacussion was held by the Commieeion, au~ari~ed as followa:
'-r 1. That subject attd ad~oining deep, narrow parcels were difficult to develop individually
i£ adequate circulation were not provided f
th
~;:.i or
e prospective reaidenta o£ theae unita,
since alleys did not create the tqpe oP livi
i
!
y,.i :' ng env
ronment deaired for the City, and
"ghettos" would reault.
~
~
f ~ ,- A
r . . . ~
~
2. That the Commiasion had recomp~ended denial of a petition for a motel propoeed to th
f .
~ ~
r
.;~, e
weat o
aub~ect properties when the developer wae unwilling to dedicate a 30-foot ~
half atreet to provide circulation
h
c
' ;
owever, this wsa sti11 to he conaidered by the
City Council.
. ~ t
;
, {` ~~?` ,
3. That alleys did not provide the type of circulati
`
h
, on necessary for £ire proteet3~n
and trash pick-up.
.~a
~` 4. That no deciaion ahould be made on sub~ect petitiona until action on the proposed
motel property weeterly of these dee
lots
a
~;% p
w
s considered by the City Council, ainca
~his would determine what circulation the City Council was deairous of havin
, g.
.
_
V
~~M'1'
~ ~li'~ ~~{
~ .'~
. . ~ .
t ~ ~ .~ ~'x '
~:, . .
.
~. ~.:~„~...1. .. ... . ~S . ?. . ., t .Ic :~1~ . ..,.~.~~ ~ . ~ ' ' ,. ~~~ ~ .i'i~~ .n::~,'d'd y. T~G~'(. -~N}31~N.. ~ FT;"~ t `{ y~
r~..~,~µ.tl~#t~N~~«r,~:... ~ ~,~s,~:~5~
~
ti~
A
~ T ? ;:.: ;
n
aF'r ~9'~}'~s~,~.~ j~ ~5'aa.. ~..~ ih lbw~T x~.:r i r~ x~f v, u £f c:'. t. n'sT, ~-f ..
~..
'
~
~
~
~
~ ~
~
. . : ~ . - . _.._ ,_ ~ . .
~~ ~ ' .
~ ~
~ ' F'
.,
wae not desirable aince every time they had visited thia development, they were unable to
gain accese to the property with the a11ey circulation becauae of the automobiles parked in
the a11ey; therefore, it would aeem impoeaible for large £ire and trsah trucka to provide
aervice to the development, and they did not wiah to compound an uttdeairable aituation by
approving 'sub~ect petitiona, which propoeed the eame type oP circulation.
Mra. Smith then noted that if the atreet as propoaed on ESch.ibit "B~' were required, it would
take moet of her property, and regardlesa of the method of circulation - street or alley -
these propertiea would be deveJ.opad for a more intenee land uae; however, they were not
deairous of any more dedication of their land aince they had already given 26 feet from
the frontage for atreet widening of Magnolia Avenue.
The Commission adviaed Mre. Smith that the location of the atreet was ~uat a suggestion -
that posaibly to allaviate some of the problema, the petitioner could dedicate a portion
of the property for atreet purpoaee, and the balance would be from her property, although
thia atill did not reaolve the problem of the northerly deep parcel, and an elternxtive
could be land asaembly as a eolution.
MIN[TTES, CITY'PLA1~IDiING CONA2ISSION, Auguat 20, 1968 4086
RECLASSIFICATION" - 1~Ir„ Thompeon further noted that the major isaue was the manner in
N0. 68-69-22 whicli"the Planning Commi.saion was deairous of having this area devsloped,
VARTANCE'N0:-'200 with the three alternativea presented in the staff report; that the
Continued Interdepartmental Committee did expreee concern regarding the inability
of tiaving fire equipment getting to the rear of theae properties whe•re
sutomobilea wo~il.d be parked; and that the ataff wanted to point out to
the Co~isaion that if they felt iudividusl development were acceptable, then the Commisaion ;
would be faced with variance requeata, aince it would be extremely dif£icult to develop
without some form of circulation. .
;}
, 7,
The Commisaion also noted that the apartment development to the aouth had been deneloped ~; ;
approximately aix years ago, and the Commi.saion now recognized that thia type of develo ment "'=~''
,;;? Mr. Thompaon adviaed the Commiasion that the City Council would coneider the motel proposal
_;,"~ to the weat of aubject property on September 3, if the action were to be deferred; therefore
~ the Commi.asion might wiah to continue this until the meeting of September 23 in order that
<~i'~ the City Council action might be reflected in an area developmettt plan for these lots.
41 '
~,~~~~ Asaiatant Development Servicea Director Robert Mickelson advised the Commiasion that during
~~ the diacusaion o£ the Interdepartmental Co~ittee, the entire area which was not preaently
5r..a.~~~~ ' ' ' .
.~ti• developed was raviewed, and the comments of the develo er of the motel were taken into
~'~,'~s~ consideration; thrit the recommettdation of the Planning Commission regasding a cul-de-sac
;,,,;,;;.~~ etreet for thie propsrty to the west with a half-width being dedicated wae reivewed -
;'~~'~ however, it was atill £elt tbat adequate circulation should be required for a better living
,~ environment aince where lots were £rom 400 to 600 £eet deep, apartmenta to the rear would
~,~r• only be oriented to an alley, and the best eolutiott would be land assembly, with a atseet
;,,,;~ going through the propertiea so that each parcel had aome frontage on a atreet all •Cha way
to the rear - then having circulation to another street rather than having only ingress and
~ egresa to Magnolia Avenue, while the rear unita could have accesa through to Lincoln Avenue;
that the Commisaion hsd been trying for some time to have land asaembly of these deep
~;~~ parcels but too many obstacles were always in the way - therefore the ataff felt that they
,'H could only recammend aome type of circulation should be p:ovided, and exhibita were prepared
,'~:,~ for the Commiss?on~s consideration.
The Commiasi~n also noted that they had an obligation to the £uture reaidents of theae
unita, aa well as the developer, since a poor living environment and inadequate circulation
created a rental problem whtch would have an economic effect on the ownera of the property.
The agent frar the petitioner inquired whether land asaembly with the parcel to the north -
would ths atreet be extanded to Lincoln Avenue, or wou]d a cul-de-sac atreet be adequate
with alley circulation for accesa to the cul-de-sac street.
Mr.'Mickelson noted that it would be desirable to have the link to Lincoln Avenue; however,
i£ thia were imposaible, then the cul-de-sac street would provide a better living environ-
ment and would be nearer the standarda required under the R-3 Zone than if unita were
adjacent to an alley.
The agent then inquired whether a 50-foot street had been conaidered.
Office Eaginesr Arthur Daw adviaed the Commiaeion and the agent that the City of Anaheim
had not had 90-foot streets for at least ten yeara, and theae were in single-family tracta;
however, 64-foot streets were deairable in order to have a apace for planting o£ trees and
construction of sidewalks, but nothing lesa than a 64-foot street rtas approved for R-3
d.evelopment since atreet parking was quite prevalent, while the same was not true of R-1 - -'~'
d~~relopments.
al '? ?: ~;~.`#.
,; `;;
,~:= •.
~ ~
~.
,~
~ °~ .. ~' iZ :'` a '~`T~~~*1', i'~A .,~ °~ ,~$ Yrf+ ~,y ~ 7~ ~ ~r _C} 5 _" ...._~ 4 ~1 y~ ~'~
q r 7 - +e ~~ .r ' S
h
. . . --- , . ` `~
O 1` ~ fi
. . ~ ~! ~ . , ~ ~ ~x ~
MINUTES, CITY PLAIJNING CAI~IISSION A •~
, uguat 26, 1968 4087
RECLASSIFICATION '- (lommi.asioner Gauer offered a motion to conti.nue coneideration of
~•'~=69-22 ~eclasaification No. 68-69-22 and Varianes N~~ 2009 to the meeting •--
VARIANCE'N0:"2002 of September 23, 1968, in order to a11ow time for actiott by the
Continued) City Council and the implementation and edvertiaing of an area
development plan in the event the City Council required it. Commisaioner ~
Mungall aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED,
VARIANCE N0. 2007`- PIIBLIC HEARING. GULF OIL CORPOR~'fION, P. 0. Box 10663, Santa Ana,
California, Owner; GEN.ERAI, MAIftTENANCE, INC., P. 0, Box 5b39, Buena
Park, Cslifornia, Agent; requeating WAIVERS OF (1) NUNIDER OF FREE-
STANDING SIGNS'PEE~IITTED AND (2) IACATION OF FHEE-STANDING SIGN TO PERMIT THE ERECTION OF
IDENTIFICATION"SIGN on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land at
the aouthweat corner'of East Street and Grangefair Lane, approximately 1,300 feet south of
Orangethorpe Avenue, with appro~dmate frontages of 150 feet on Eaet Street and 178 feet ott
Orangefair I,ane. Property preaently clasaified M-1, LIGFiT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE,
Aesietant Zoning Supervisor Pat Hrown rev3.ewed the location of subject property, the proposal
and the reason for the request for two aigns - one having a height of 70 feet.
~ ~;
{ Mr. Don Fink, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commisaion and illustrated on
t
1, he blackboard where the two aigna were propoaed,and their reason for requeating the 70-foot
,~
~
`
: sign was based on the fact that the Holiday Inn was proposed to be constructed in the City
F
s
*' of Fullerton, on the east aide of the atreet immediately adjacent to the off-ramp
and a
,.~ ,
27-foot hei ht ai as
g gn permitted under the M-1 Zone would be blocked from view from motoriata
- coming off the off-ramp of the freeway.
~
~,,:
4 ZoRing Supervisor Ronald Thompson inquired as to the need £or both signs; whereupon the
~~. ;
~ agettt stated that it was necessary to have both identification to the freeway and to the
_.;,~ general public along East Street.
'~;
~ Mr. Thompson further noted that one 70-faot high aign would be adequate for aigning aubject
~ .~ ?:
:~~ property if placed in the center of the property, aince only one sign wae permitted by the
Code
and m
t
i
~ `
'~
S ,
os
serv
ce atations in the M-1 Zone erected a aingle sign.
~~' ~~ 4~
~~iy~;~.~, No one appeared in oppositiom to sub~ect petition.
~
~
~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~
;
~
~ ~i~e.~-
c, THE HEARING WAS CLOSED~.
~
~ ~
~~ , ~ ~~~ ~
~ i~
; ~ 4~'r7~~;
, s
1 Commisaioner Gauer e reased o oeitiori to any waiver of the Sign Ordinance and auggeated
xP PP
'
~
, ~
t,~ •, that all development of~signs within the City should be in accordance with the Sign Ordinance.
;
~
~~'
°
~ Commiseioner Farano noted that although he was not particularly enthusiastic about the
a~,
;
~ propoeal, he could aee no undue harm to ad~oining propertiea if the proposal were approved
and'inquirad whethe
th
- ,~
,
~:~ r
e agent was a representative oP the sign company or a repreaentative
of the Gulf Oil Compar~r,
5
f ~` ~
~i
~ Mr~ Fink,replied that he was a reFreaentative of the aign company; however, a repreeentative
f
,
~
~
~
n' o
the Gulf Oil Companyr~aas in attendance if the Commiseion was deairous of making inquiriee.
~
t
.^
,~1,
~'
~ Commisaionsr Farano offeredl Reaolution No. PC68-261 and moved for ita passage and adoption
~° r ,
seconded by Co~issioner Muugall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2007, with a finding
a
~A
` r
~ th
t approval of aubject'petition ahall not be co
nstrued as eatabliahing a precedent since
the location o~ the
v
s
t
,
;
,`y'~~., aer
ice
ta
ion necesaitated expeaure to the freeway with other than a
sign as permitted by Co~a, ~ue to conatruction of a highriae motel
hi
h
ld
r~ :~`~. w
c
wou
obstruct
normal signing, and reaidential usea were not afPected. (See Resolution Book)
r
~ ~ ,,
T' {~
On roll call the foregoing reso~ution was pasaed by the following vote:
f ~Mr;~ AYES: CON1~ffSSIONERS: Farano, Mungall, Rowland.
~~
~ y" ,'~~
'
~
~
: , NOFS: CONII~LiSSIONERS: Allred, Gauer.
ABSENT: COI~IISSIO
s
~ ~ .
d ~
~
~E NERS
Camp, llerbat.
,~~, f ~~~ o
~
: .,~S:a,~
~
~ ~
~
'`-;
;
~
%
~:
t
,'
~-q ~
4r r ;~:ti ;
er{"9} f"~F S.7 nr+`~'Y rl ~~ I~
~
l~{~Y~ ~ j~SFS f-5.t '3~ '~ nR Qy' ~1~"N` 'r,"`?~ i7P"y~.as~ ?; n 4_ y .'1
n c~
~~l` f
f
.
L
~Y
~
, . .
.. .
. .
, ,
i :.~..-
l 1,:
~
~... ~.:~.~ ~: - .
C ,~w '.
.
~
.
.
, . ~
~
~
i
`.
.... .
:. . . ~
~.:
_"
:
~
:...
~tL j • ....
.
..._.._.
y ~ ~ ~
B',~
~` t MIN[TTFS, CITY PLA~I~TCi. C02+AiISSION , Auguat 26
190$
,
la088
~~,
r
RECLASSIFICATION' ~.~TJBLIp NTARTNG. FRED R. BECKHAM, 801 South Anaheim Baulevard, ,~
~ - N0. 68-69-21 A^_na-hLeim, California, Owner; F. T. PATIN, 801 South Anaheim Boulevard, ~----
~J ..~r.~" ~ ~u1rif1B~~ California, Agent; ~ requeeting that propert deacribed ~ ~ ~
A rec tangularly shaped lot located at the northweat scorner of Anaheim
Boulevard and MacArtizur Manor and having approximate frontages of 101 feet on the weat side
of Anaheim Boulevard and 57 feet on the north eide of MacArthur Manor, and t~rther described
as 101 MacArthur Manor be reclaseified from the Rr-1, ONE-FAMTLY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the
+~ ' ~-3, HEAV7C C02+A~CIAI;,. ZONE.
y~
~ gsaietant Zoning Supern.isor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the uses
~" ~ eatabliahed in cloae roxLmit and the
`" ' P Y, propoaed requeet, noting that tha petitioner pro-
iaT~ . ~~ posed to move the existing atructure and blackto sub ect
~ ~' ~~ p 3 property for uae as a supplemental
~ " parking area for the existing auto dealerehyp; flu~thermore, that eub3ect property would be
~.~ ' : developed in accordance with the aite development etandarda of the C-1 Zone in order to
~ ~~ ~ protect the aingle-family propertiea located to the weet and south.
a
''' ' -' Mr.•F, T. Patin, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commisaion and ttoted that
~ the exiating atructure was obatructing the vieW of the main lot from motoriata coming north
~y on Anaheim Boulevard, and this rras the brsaic seasott for removal of the home. Furthermore,
~ the petiti'oner had owned this property For mox~e than five yeara, and a masonry wall already
exieted between sub3ect property and the aingle-family home to the west, which was a con-
~ tinuance of the existing fence to the north of aub~ect property.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson adviaed the Commisaion that the C-1 site development
atandarda would require a 6-foot masonry, wall along the north side of MacArthur Manor and
a 3-foot atrip of landacaping where two-thirds of the homea were aingle-family, and all
homea on this etreet were developed for single-family use; that the ataff had checked the
property as of thia date,and ~.o was determined that a drive approach to MacArthur Manor
: ahould be removed and regular curb and parkway insta?.l,ed; that accesa righta to MacArthur'
;; Manor ahould be dedicated to the City o£ Aaaheim to keep from having a harmful effect on
• the single-family reaidenta; ~that the north aide of MacArthur Manor would have to have a
~ 6-£oot masonry wa11 along the west property line, with a acreen-type landscaping as well
as the one indioated for the aouth aide of the property - theao recommendations were made
;;j in the erent the Commisaion considerezl eub~ect petition favorably.
Y._ . (
~"~L,,, ~;~I`~ Mr• Heruy Mang, 107 MacArthur Manor, appeared befo~ca the Commieaion in oppoaition and noted
+ that aubject property was included in the deed reatrictiona which limited the uae of the
~t,` ~'-~ property to residentia], purpoaea; that he felt there was no necesaity that commercial usea
a~ '' . ~~ be injected on the aingle-family homea on a OA9-UZOQ,I{ ~~reet where fine homea had been
' ,:i~; developed since 1949; that all of the reaidents of the ax~ea had been satiafied with their
~ ''~ exiating Facilities and were opposed to any commerc~.el encroachment into the reaidentisl
•';i street it'self, even though it was locatsd at the interee~:tion of Anaheim Boulevard and
.~~, MacArthur Mrinor, Furthermore, the exiating alley ta the aaeat ahould be widened in order
that the tx~:-~ks preaently unloadin~ tlie vehiclea on the automobile parking lot would not
~ obatruct traJ'~'ic through the alley, and then Mr. Mang quot~d from page 463 of the Anaheim
'` '~ Municipal Code,which required loading apacea for an operation of the type Beckham had -
ad~acent to single-family homes weater],y of subject property; that the petitioner had not
maintained the home in rthe mann~er in which all other homea had been maintained, thereby
:; creating a fire hazard, and the home had been rented, and after the last rental had moved,
~~; he had been contacted by numerous pereotts deairing to rent the home but the
, • '", had not exhibited say~interest in renting the home again; and all of the ai.ngletfamilyr
~ '~ homeowners on MacArthur Manor urged the Commisaion to deny subject petition.
~~~~
'. Mr• Patin noted that the Police Depax~tmant had giveZ Beckham Motors permisaion to unload,
provided that adequate space was allowed for one car to pass by.
,I ~~~
Mrs. A. M~ Po.udevigne, 110 MacArthur Manor, appeared before the Commiasion in opposition
and noted that she was also the owner of the property; that the street was very narrow
and when cara were parked on both aides, there was inaufficient room to drive through;
that the lots were only 57 feet wide, and at the rear of the property an 18-foot alley
existed, extending from Lemon Street, and the apartmenta located on Lemon Street had garages
along this alley, and the occupants of theae apartmenta never utilized their atreet to gain
acceas to their garages, but utilized MacArthur Manor and the alley, and conaiderable park-
ing from theae apartments was experienced ott MacArthur Manor; that approval of subject
petition might inject coarmercial parking on the atreet with will further add to the hazard-
oua condition on MacArthur Manor.
'°_ Mr. Sidney Wai~kins, 106 MacArthur Manor, appeared before the Coffiission and complainad about
;~ the trucl~s.ueing the alley for unloading purposea; tha~ although a atatement was made Uy the
,~,'~, representa.tative that olice had a
p pproved tha unloading of the truck, it had been almoat
~:s impoasible to maneuver an au'tomobile between the exiating Fence and the parked truck.
;7 ~
3r
~
;
t
~~ "~ ~,. ~,
i
~' :
~: ;
,. . m.:=:» .-,'~;-
~
'~
``;:a
_ ~
'.t k?~,
}` i~`' t'y`"' ~ T::fi 1 ,~.r 1~ .r
~ '
;; s~
~:./ t..s' ~
MINIITFS, CITY `PI~ANNING COI~'AffSSION, Auguat 26, 19b8 4089
~tE~LASSIFICATIObP '"=~Mr.~~Robert Baker~ ]14 MacArthur Manor, appeared before the Commisaion
N~• 68-6 -21 ~' and concurred taith the commenta made relative to the untenable aitus-
Con'tiriued tion of the a3.ley where theae large trailer trucka were parked to
unload automobilea, depriving private automobiles £rom having acceas
through the alley; that many proapective purchasere of automobilea
utilized their one-block atreet £or the teating of their cars, and by further ettcroach-
ment of c~mmercial ueee into thie reaidential atreet would deatroy the reaidential integrity
and create inaurmountable hazarda to both the ~•'tLildren and older reaidenta o£ the etreet;
and that the alley was prov3.ded at the time tne aingle-£amily tract was developed, at whi~ch
time the width of the alley might have been di£ferent than that required at tha preaent ~
time.
Zoning Supervisor Rone.ld Thompson adviaed the Commiasion that the Beckham property was zoned
R-2 with a variance and extended to the alley.
Office ~hgineer Arthur Daw adviaed the Commisaion that when the 3ealerahip was approved,
their accesa indicated on the plana wae only to Anaheim Boulevard and South Street and
ehowed no accesa to an alley.
l The Co~i.saion advieed intereated peraona that the item on the agenda for Commiesion con-
~ aideration wae the aingle-family lot at the intersection of MacArthur Manor and Anaheim
, Boulevard, and any other complainta or objectiona to the alley cou].d not be conaidered
' under thie petition, and that the Commisaion muet determine whether or not the requested
zoning wou'ld be auitable for the parking of automobilea ad~acent to eingle-family homea.
Mre. J. K. Littrell, 121 MacArthur Manor, appeared before the Co~i.eaion in oppoaition and
noted that the trucke had run•over her roeebuahea a number a times aince her property rras
right at the interaection of the a11ey and MacArthur Manor, and when ahe complained to the
truck drivera, they i.nforiaed her that the only way her atatement could be proven wae by
pictures taken at the time the trucks treapaseed on her property; end that the apartments
to the weat mar~y timea had fifteen automobilee parked in the alley, and although she had
talked with the police about p~rking in the alley, nothing had been done about this, and
the aituation was becoming uni~enable becauee their only access from the garage was to the
alley, and many timea ahe wae unable to back her car out of the garage becauae of the
truoks in the alley,
Mr. Charles K~nsman, ll5 rlacArthur Manor~-appeared ~.n oppoaition and noted that a wall had
been required to the north of all the single-family homes, xwuiing from the alley to
Anaheim Boulevard - however, the petitioner had already remcved the wall on the north aide
of his property without any ~uriadiction whataoever.
Mr. Patin, in rebuttal, noted tYiat if the unloading of the trucka wae px~eaenting a problem
to the reaidents of the area, the unloading could be relocated, but thia was the firat he
had heard of any oppoaition relative to the unloading of trucke.
Tha Commiaeion noted that they were poaitive if trucks had gone over the lawn of Mra.
Littrell, not only would Mre. Littrell complained about it, but the truck drivera would
have mentioned it also.
Chairman itllred left the Council Chamber at 4~35 P.M. Chairman pro tem Rowland asaumed
the chair. .
The Commisaion then advised the opposition that if sub~ect petition wers not approved, the
wall thet had been removed would have to be replaced.
THE HEARING WAS CIASED.
The Co~i.aeion inquired of the ataff if C-9 zoning were approved for aub~ect property,
could the property be used for other than the parkittg ae propoaed - or was it poasible
for them to conetruct some type of building, auch ae a garage, since no plana had been
submitted wi.th the reclaseification petition.
Chairman Allred returnerl to the Council Chamber at 4~38 P.M, and asaumed the chair.
Mr. Thompson advised the Co~i.saion that theoretically a building could be conatructed;
however, because it would be adjacent to single-family homes, e 2:1 aetback would be
required, but there was nothing that would prevent the.petitioner from building within
the C-3 Zor.e if the zoning ware approved.
"i Coffinisaianar Farano ofPerad Resolution No. PC68-262 and moved for ita passage and adoption,
~~:~; aeconded by Commiasioner Gauer, to reco~end to the City Council that Petition for Reclas-
;~ sification No. 68-69-21 be disapproved on the baeis that the propoaed reclassification wsa
~,: not neceaeary and/or desirable £or the orderly and proper development of the community;
•r
.., , ti.:~:i . . ~
`:~~
_ + -:. ,~~V:
,
_, "Y.. /^ `::;. ~~~,
~' c
~~. . ~n ~i"~ '~i t '3~' +~,k~ ~,'~,1~^k f wa~~t r. v . ~7 S `. : < ~ ~ ~ ~
- !.~ . .,.- Nr>d ~~ ...
~~~ S
,;~: "~
~~
CJ
(`_~
~
~ {,:~
,-. ~~~~~ .
~.
i'..
MIN[TTES,'OITY~PLANNING COhII~LCSSION, Auguet 26, 1968
4090
RECLASSIFTCATION" - that-tha proposed reclaeaifioation and uae of the property were not
N0. 68•~69-21` compatible with the reaidential integrity o£ the area, conaiating of
(Continue~ s11 eingle-family homee on a one-block atreet; that although the
petitioner atipulated to development in accordance with the aite
develop~ent atandarda of the C-1 Zone, the zoning propoaed would
inject heavier uaee which could have a deleterioua effect on the propertiF~s 3mmediately
to the weet and aouth. (See Reaolution Book)
On roll call the £oregoing resolution wae paseed by the following vote:
~YES: CONIl~IISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Mungall, A11red.
NOFS: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COI~IISSIONERS; Camp, Herbat.
ABSTAIN: CONAf.TSSIONERS; Rowland.
CONDITIONAL IISE - PIIBLIC HEARING. NATH/~T SMppKE, 701 North Sierra Drive, Beverly Hills,
PERMIT N0. 1055 Cali£ornis, Owner; JACK WELCH, 2855 Cypreea Street, Oakland, California,
. Agent; requesting permiasion to CONTINITE REPAIR AND SERVICING OF SMALL
TRACTORS, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) PERMITTED M-1 IISES (RETAIL SALFS OF
TRACTORS) AND (2) REQIIIRED E~CLOSIIRE OF OIITDOOR DTSPLAY AREAS on property described ae:
Approximately 2.4 acrea of land having a frontage of appro~dmately 287 feet on the aouth
eide of Katella Avenue and a~maximum depth of appro~d.mately 332 £eet, the westerly boundary
of said property being approximately 500 feet eaet of the centerline of Anaheim Boulenard,
and fu:ther deacribed as 620 East Katella Avenue. Property present~y clasaified M-l,
LIGIiT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
Asaiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed aub~ect petition, noting the location of
sub~ect property, the uaee proposed, and the wainera rsqueated, and further noting that
becauae the petitioner was propoaing a`3000-aquare foot structure to the rear of the exiat-
ing atructuree, expanding a nonconforming uae, eubject petition was tteceasary; that there
had been three aimilar requeata £or permiasion for outdoor diaplay of equipment in thia
area, with waiver of the requirbd maeonxy wall, and one petition wae denied - that being
located on the north aide of Ball Road, east of Anaheim Boulevard, and in thia particuL r
inatance the petitioner was propoeing locatiott of the'outdoor display within the required
50-foot atructural aetback, which in the Commieaion~s opinion wsa granting a privilege ttot
enjoyed by adjoining property ownere'and would adveraely affect theee propertiee. Howener,
the'petitioner was proposing to ha.ve outdoor dieplay area to the rear of the required
atructural setback and had indicated a wi113ngnesa to conform with the M-1 aite denelopment
atandards, and that the plans indicated the front 35 feet would be f~].ly landacaped and
all parking would be to the aide of the atructures.
The agent for the petitioner indicated hia preaence to answer any queationa the Co~isaion
might have.
No one appeared in opposition to aub~ect petition.
Tf~ I~ARINr, WAS CIASED.
Commiasioner Gauer oPfered Reaolution No. PC68-263 and moved for ite paesage and adoption,
seconded by Commisaioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1055,
aub~ect to conditions and wainer of the 6-foot masoniy wall and permitted uaea, to allow
retail sales, and sub3ect to an additional condition that the property be developed aub-
atantially in conformance wi~h the aite denelopment atandarda of the M-1 Zone and speci-
ficationa on file with the City, and further provided that all outdoor display ahall be
ma.intained to the rear o£ the 50-foot building aetback as etipulated by the petitioner.
(See Reaolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing reaolution was pssaed by the following vote:
AYFS: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Allred.
NOES; COfR~lISSIONERS; None.
ABSENT: CONIMISSIONERSo Camp „ Herbat.
ti :~.~ :' ~
~x ~
~ . '-,' ; --,- .. ~~ . ,
. . . . . '= f 'VJY
y ~.
•
~
l f_L . .
~ . . .. ~ ...
~
~
~ ~ ~
. ;
Y ..
.. .. .. . . . ' . . Z f .,
~
!
;: MIN[TTES, CITY PI~ANDTING COI~IISSION, August 26 1968
, 4~91 ~~~~
~,,:
''
'~ '
RECJ:ASSIFICATION -:. PIIBLIC` HEARING. IIQITIATID BY THE . CITY PLANNING"CONJ~IISSION, 204 East
.
~ ~ ~
' - ~`~
~ ce~
~i 1 "'
- .
..
N0. 68=69-23
Zincola`Avernie, Anaheim, California;:proposing that property dsacribad ~
~ ``
~
~;' ae: ,App~oximatcly',7.5 acres of land havi5~g a frontage of approximately
'621 f
t
' f~
, 4_ eet on.
hs weet eide of
Walnut Canyon Road'and.a max3mum depth of ;.
'~,
k'R;; approximately 665 feet,~theiaoutherly`boundary-oY said parcel being approximat`ely 80 feet
'
'
'
' ~
,;~
,
`
. . north
Nohl Canyon
of
Road'`be reclaseified `from `the" County Al, AGRIC[TLTURAL, DISTRICT to ~{ °~:
~ '
~
~
.~ ~
~.
the Rr$~ AGRIC[TLTITRAL, ZONE.
.
- ;
.
`s {~r.!~
;
~`
~yt
'j,: ,
geaietsnt•Zoning Supervieor Pat Brown reviewed the.location of aubject property, noting- r
rr
''',r`~ a't~1
?'._<~ that the exietin Qoun zo y ~ ~
B ty`.~, ning we.a Al, which:was similar to the Cit of'Anaheim a R-A
'
" ~ J ~ ~,:
Agricultura7.
; Zona;
that"sub~eat.,property. had been annexed into the' City of Anaheim on ,~'~ ~`~'' "
`
~
,
u7,V 31, 1968, known ae th nn
J e Lincoln Walnut•~nne~tion.
~
~
~
~ `r
'r
~r
~
x {,:: , . ..
. .
: ;
..
. ~ ~.. . . . . . . . . I
~. 4 7 ~r.
4_-.;~ No one appeared in oppoeition to eub~ect petition. ""~ '
~
THE $EARING WAS CIASED~
`k ~
Commisaioner Rowland offered Reeolution No. PC68-26/+ and moved Yor its`passage and adoption,' ~ i~
;~
~ eeconded by Co~ieaioner (3auer, to recomm~end to the City Council that permanent zoning be °,F
~` eatabliehs3 for ~he Lincoln Walnut Anne~tion under Peiition for Reclaeeifica.tion No. 68-69-23. 'j'•
'~ (See Reeolution Book) • ~
>~ ,,
,w~; On roll call the foregoing resolution wae paseed by the following vote: `,
~
}:~
' AYES: CO1~AiISS20NERS: Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, A1].red. "~ ~-`
~ NOFS: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~` ,
~
~ ;~ ABSENT: COi~IISS20NERS: Camp, Herbst. ,
, '~?'
T~~..
REPORTS AND - :ITII~I~'N0. 1 ,, ~
`RECOTR+I~NDATIONS OR~TGE COIINTY IISE PEEd~IIT N0. 3019 - Request to eatabliah a }~~'~
non-coamiercial dog kennel to houae a max[mum of 12 dogs on ~;~:,^~t,,
property located in the.County of Orange on Creatwood Lane,
i z.~~
a rox
mate 250 feet weet of Jean Street, and between
PP ly ~
Brookhurat Street and Gilbert Street. Property zoned R 1 ' , ;~
~N~~'fi1J pl
.~,x~r~,~
Aasiatant Zoning Supervieor.Pat•Brown preeented a requeet to the Orange Couaty Planning ; x~'~r ~ ~~ ~ tix
~r~'~ti'`~w~
„ .
Coa~iasioa, Orange 0otinty Use Permit No.,3019, to permit the eatablishment'of a:dog kennel ~ r.. ' tii`.4~i
,
h~
t,o houee s ma~rimnm of 12 doge~ ' es3d propeTty be3ng located 3.~1 the' oenteT of eeversl 18Tge'
R
' r
~; 't~~}
~~
-1 tracte
to the aouth, weat, north; and eset.- some:;o£ which are'within;the City of Anaheim; r ~'~
and that i;he uae would not'be-permitted in the R-1 Zone in.the City;'of Anaheim,.even by'meana ~~1
of a conditional use permit. Therefore, it would appear that the propoaed use would be a ,, ,i'~
definite detriment to the surrounding single-£smily propertiee se a'reeult,of noiee £rom ~ i;'
baxking doga, odor, etc. i
~
Commisaioner Gauer offered a motioa to reco~end to the City Council that the Orange Couttty i
Plantting'Co~ieeion be urged to disapprone Orange County Uee Permit No. 3019, on the basis'
that the uae would have a haimflzl effect on the aurrounding aingle-family propertiea due ' ~i
to the noieea, odora, fliea, etc. which thia type oi° use would have. Commiasioner Farano
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIID. ~
,
~
ITII~I N0. 2 ,~,
~ '_ . i.i
CONDITIONAL II SE PFfd~tIT N0. 455 - ~hurch and achool facilitiea
at the northwest corner of South'and Sunkiat Streeta = Requeat ~ ,~;
for clarificatioa of'permitted uaea. ;
~
_
~ ! , ;
;
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown noted that under the original reaolution by
the ' ,
'
,
Planning Commisaion,`approval wae indicated for addit3onal church facilities and a Sunday
' ' i
school; however, the original plane preeented to the Commisaion indicated permission;to ~ :
expand the existing church and achool`facilitiea, not necessarily a.6unday achool; that
the petitioner was now requeating permiseion to establiah a regular.day achool, and inas= ~
much as the legal advertisement and noticea indicated a day school,,the requeat originallq ~ '~
made could be approved. ~
;
,
~rn~•ssiaaer Rowland offered a motion to approve the expansion of property located at the
northwest corner of South aad Sunklet Streets originally approved under Conditional Use' ~
'-`~ermit No. 455 for an exiating'church and Sunday achool, to be interpreted to mean that ~
achool facilitiea'for t '
he ea
tabliehment of a regular private day achool would be permitted
on;aubject property. Co~i.saioner Gauer aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIID.
.. . ~ . ~ . ~ . . ~ ~ . .
.. . ~ . ,. .
~ ' ~
~ . ~~i
.
. ,
: . .. . , ~ . ... ~ . ~ . . .. . . . ~ ~ . ... ; ~ j;
. , ~ ~ ~ .. ~ . .. ~ .. ,. . ~ ~ ,
~9P!l~~~~ ~ . ~ ~ ~.. . . `~'
1
~.~ ~
~~~.. ,.~
f~,Ji!' .c"CQ ti ~ #!`e'F~ ~n`"i'T+` rfi~; ~~ Sr~~.Z,~' ~~ti~+e' +h.'~;m ~~ i ~ra ~ .. +4 * '?j w r~ 7+J'
~h ~ ~
_ _ . .. . . ~ / .. . . . . ~. . . . . ~ .
~ .. ~ ~ .:.... ~~ • ~
MINLTES,'CITY'PI~ANNING CO1~L[SSION, luguet 26, 1968 4~9z
REPORTS-AND = ITFM N0. 3
RECO~A'lENDATIONS VARIANCE N0. 1968 -.Property located at the eouthweat cortter
of•Walnut Street and Cerritoa Avenue - Propoeing to establiah
' a"car,rental and eervice facility on aub~ect property -
Requeat £or an extenaion of time and amendment to dedication
requirement.
Aaeiatant~ Zoning'Supervisor Pat Brown preaented the requeet of the agent £or the petitioner,
Mr. R. L.''Coona, requeating coaeideration of a time exteneion Yor completion of conditions
to April 1, 19b9~: ae well se conaideration of an amenc~nent to Condition Nos. 1 and 5,
requiring dedication of~a atrip of land 45 feat in width from the centerline of the atreet
~ along Cerritos Avenue and Waluut Street, including a 25-foot radiua corner return for etreet
wi.dening purpoees, and Condition.No:..$ being the completion within 180 days frcim date thereof.
The background oP previoue zoning actiona on subfect property was also reviewed, and the
lateat action oP Variance No. 1968 wae approved by the~Co~ieaiott April 8, 1968, and no
action wae takett by the City Couacil on April 30, 1968, concurring with the Co~iasion~e
action.
Mr. Brown f~rther noted that the plana aubmitted with eub~ect petition had been approved,
which indicated ultimate half-widtha of 45 feet for both Walttut Street and Cerritoa Avenue,
and sub~ect property ie the only parcel which hae not completed ultimate dedication on the
weat aide of Walnut Street between Cerritoa Avenue and Katella Avenue; however, the preaent
dedication on the aouth eide of Cerritoa Avenue ie 40 feet between Walnut Street and the
Southern Pacific Railroad tracke, with all propertiae slong this aide being ful~y developed
with the exception of eub~ect property.
Diecueaion wae held by the Commission re]ative to rraiver of the dedication, it being deter-
mined that dedication ahould be made withia 30 daye, and that a eix-month exteneion of
time could be granted £or the cmmpletion oP the ba.lance oP the conditions.
Commiaeioner Rowland oPfered a motion to grant an exteneion of eix monthe for the aompletion
of conditiona of Reaolution No. 68-69, granting Variance No. 1968, eaid exteneion to expire
on April l, 1969, and tlu~ther subfect to dedication of 45 Peet for both Walnut Street and
Cerritoa Avenue within 30 daye. Commiaeioner Mungall eeaonded the motion. MOTION CARRiED.
(The above petiti.on will be coneidered by the Co~nieeion on September 11, 1968, eince `
additional information hae been received and the agent wiehed to addreea the Commieeion.)
ITFM N0. 4
Special Stuc~y of Perceatage oY Kitchett Equipped Unita whiah
may be permitted in motela.
Aeaiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown noted for the Co~ieaion that a atudp had been made
by the staff to determine the percentage of kitchen equipped unite exieting preeently in
motela in•the City, and the limitatione aet by other oitiee in Orange County as it pertained
to motel unite with kitchen Pacilitiee; that the City Council had oontinued petitione in
which requesta had been made for 100~ of the unite wibh kitohen Pacilitiee, with a model of
the kitchen facilities on dieplay to the rear oP the Council Chamber which the developere
proposed to inatall; end that aaid petitione were approved limiting the kitahen unite to
10~ as.they pertained to the conditional uae pemiite. The etudy'ie ae follows:
"Telephone converastiona with the etaffe of,the Planning,Departmente oF eeqeral
nearby ci-tiea indicate that there are no ooaeiatent policies of code provieione
regarding the percentage of unite with kitohen-facilitiea permitted in motele.
Ttie varioue citiea range from abeolute prohibitioa of kitohen facilities to
sllowittg 100~ of the unite to have a~y type of kitchen Pacilitiee desired. Of
~hoae citiee which permit a certain percentage oY unita to have kitchen Pacilitiee,
aeveral require additional parking epacea.
~~A tele,phone eurvey of motels in Anaheim indicated:
1. Out of 3,915 total motel unite~ 51~0 were kitchen equipped, for a Yigure
of 13.9~. .
2. Of the motele whicb have euch unite, 29.5~ of their total unite were
kitchen equiPPed.
'"Tha'sts~f's-o'P'~ma~'iof -these ci:tiee indicate that their urimarv concern ie the
posatbilitv-oP motel uni-te with kitchene becamin¢ eubatandard livi Q unite Yor
permanent resddente. Moet citiee~ like Anaheim, have minimum apartment eizee for
their muZtiple-family reeidential zonee. The providing of aubetandard living
unita in motels ie technically a mesna oF ciraumventing the minimum multiple-
Pamily reaidential code requiremente.
~^~
. .S~
:~
..:,
-;1
:'y
3
;~
e
~ '; '~
j ; ~~~
.-~
: `~
;,;
,:
„
»
r-
' . ~ C~ ~;)
+ MINIITE'S, CITY°PL'ANNING COMNlISSIOII, Auguat 29, 1968
. . REPORTS AND
~.~/ ~ u
ko93
RECOMMENDATIONS - ITFM N0. 4(Continued) , r ;~
..~,--T:
~ ,
~ ~, -'
!'Motele are permitted-by right in only the C-3 and C-~ Za~es; in all other zonea
a conditiona].'use permit ia required. The presant code also eatabliahea the time ;;
perioda £or which a motel unit mqp be rented. $owever, no requirement has been :
eatabliahed regarding kitchen facilitie~. 4:
~ .. . . . . .. , ~y~
"Whtle it would certain~y appear to be deairable to allow some kitchen equipped ' ~
unite Por the temporary use of familiee, it would undoubtedly be undeairable to '":
allow the type of kitchen facilities that would encourage permanent reaidents in ~ ,~
s mctel. This'problemwcoald°be alleviated if the permitted phyeical development
>~ of the kitchen equipped uni.te wae such that permanent tenants would be diacouraged.
,3±' a~ "If this aeema a reaeoaable approach to the problem, the Planning Commiasion may
-;;;f wieh to initiate an additional amendment to the Definition aection of motels -
;''. Section 18.08.730:
:f,'
-•°~. "Kitchen facilitias will be permitted in a maximum 50~ of the units
~ of any motel, provided that eaid kitchen facilitiea ehall be 13mi.ted
to an efficiency kitchen unit designed and conetructed as an integrated
unit, including a refrigerator, aink, and cooking range, but excluding
~ therefrom any type of oven or baking facility."
~ r,' ~.:. ~~..~'y.`.
';-~~ Conaiderable diacuasion wae then held by the Commieaion and staff regarding the reeulta
;;;:~~ of the survey, the reaction of other citiea, and the reco~endations made by the etaff
;~~ as to the allowable percentage of unite permitted to have kitchett facilitiee, comparing
~,~i thia information with preaent motel £acilities with kitchen units, attd upon cottclusion
~ of this discusaion, the Co~iesion determined that aince their Boc~y had limited recent
;>~~ motel facilitiea to 10~ of the unita with kitchen Facilities, the figure of 13.9~ was
{;~ not too much more than the perceatage originally projected, and that thie percentage
;~;'::~;~c;~: could be incresaed to 15~, but to consider g0~ would encourage the uee of motels ae
F~;5; eubetandard apartmenta. Furthermore, the amea~ent to the Definition aection propoeed
~~
`~' whieh referred to "designed and conatructed ae an itttegrated unit" ahould be excluded
~' a`~` itt order to allow',the owner the ri ht`to determine whether or hot the inte
~ti ~r,?,~ ~ gratea : unita
~~~,1,.~ would'satisfy his requirements, or whether other arrangeimenta could be made which would
%ryr~t, ` be more advantageous to the owner, eo long ae the rrimainder of the Code requirement was
L ~,C
t~ ''. ~~ ~ met•~ .. . . , ~ , ~ . ~ ~ . . . .
.1i' .~ . '. . ~~ .
i ~ Su^~ ' ~ ' . . ~ ~ . ~ . . ~ . .
t,^~1 Commiasioner Rowland offered a motion, aeconded by Commieeioner Gauer, and MOTION CARRIID,
;„~ to adviae the City Council that the Planning Co~ieaion has reviewed the etuc~y de.ta
~:~i,~ preaented by the staff relative to percentage of kitchen facilitiea in ezisting motele
' `'~`" in the Cit
~,,~;~; y, and has determined that thia evidence indicatee that previous limitatione
of 10~ of the unita of a motel may have kitchen facilitiea wae somewhat lese than that
u,~r~ which preaentlq existed; therefore, the increase ehould be made to 15~. Furthermore,
;,,H consideration should be given to an amenc~-eat to the Definition eeetion of the Anaheim
;:;r. Municipal Code referring to motels - Section 18.08.730, to iaclude the following:
,~
~ix~ "18.08.730 - Motels . . .
`~ Kitchen fac313t3e8 will be permitted in a mA~~~m 15~ of the
unita of any motel, provided that eaid kitchen facilitiea
'~if~ ahall be limited to an ef£iciency kitchen unit, including a
"'~"'~' refrigerator, aink, and cooking range, but excluding there-
r~~
, `~
'"~ £rom any type oY oven or baking faci].i.iy.°
~. ~,
~~;~;.
t, rx RECESS FOR DINNER - Commisaioner Farano offered a motion to receas for dinner.
T1 '` Co~iesioner Gauer eoconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED,
;~; The meeting receaeed at 5:00 P.M.
., ^ SiA~' ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~'t%~ RECONVENE - Chairman Allred reconvened the meeting at 7:30 P.M., Commisaionera
'~~~ ~''~ Camp and Herbst being abaent.
~Lt ~~ ~t~
~r `~>~~,r
,~ :',F~~,
~
'i
~~
`.'Y's~,
,,~
,;~.
''
,1
e
t:
x,
~.: ~4' . r'. ~i
- , . . . .. ~ ._ ~.1.~~.
~ i:'. .
.. ~ ~`:
!!;,
y~ ~ i
,.
~
~
CU
MIN[1TFS, ~ CITY PLANIJING COI~II+BSSION, Auguat 26, 1968
CONDITIONAL'IISE ='CONTINIIID PtTALIC $EARING. FRANK HORNY, 353 South I.e. Brea Avenue,
PERMIT'N0: 1050' `I,os Augelea, California, Owner; HARRY IINISELY, 1741 South E4iclid
Street, Suite "B~~, Anaheim, Caiifornia, Agent; requesting permiasiott
to establiah a 333-U1JIT, THRFsE-.STORY PLANNED RFSIDENTIAL D~'VIIAPMENT
WITH WAIVERS' OF'(1) MA7CIlri[TM BUILDING HEIGHT, (2) MINIMUNI BIIIJ,DING SITE AREA PER I1yTELLING
~IT, ~3~) MIN~Ni~f"~'I;OOR AREA PER DWELLING IINIT, (w) MINIMOM BUI7~DING SETBACK, (5) MINIMUM
NOMBER OF'REQIIIRED'-COVERED pARi{ING SPACFS, AND (5) R~IIIAEII MASONRY WALL on property
deacribed as: Ari'ii~regularly ahaped parcel of approxlmately 5.9 acres of land having a
frontage of approx3mately 396 feet on.the north aide oF North Street and a maximum depth
o£ approximately 839 feet, the easterly boundary ~i said parcel being Lido Lane, and the
weeterly boundary being approximate7.y 280 feet eaet of the centerline of Loara Street.
Property preaently claeaified R-3, MULTIPL~.FAMILY RF52DENTI.AL, ZONE.
Sub3eet petition was contittued from the meeting of July 29, 1968, to allow time £or the
etaff to contact the Parice ancl Recreation Department regarding the reco~endation of the
Citizena Capital Improv~ent Coarmittee relative to the westrrard expanaion of Sage Park,
which would involve the northerly portion of aub~ect property.
Asaistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the uaes
eetabliahed in close proximity, and the requeated wainera, noting that a planned reaidential
denelopment was proposed with senen waivera.
~ Mx'• Harry Kniaely, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commiasion and reviewed
the reason £or the request for continuance of aub3ect petition, noting that aince that time,
a number of ineetinga had beea held with the City Manager and the Parks and Recreation
Mrector regarding the aolution of the park~s e~ansion; that at the laet City Council
meeting it was decided that the full three acres wae nut needed - however, an additional
30 parking epacea and both vehicular attd pedeatrian acceeaway wae neceaeary along the ttorth-
erly boundary of aub~ect property, extending to Loara Street; that after the meeting between
the City Council and Parks and Rscreation Director, the petitioner and hie architect, as well
as he, had met to diacuea the meana of providing the parking and acceae, and the architect
wae now in the proceae of reviaing plane; therefore, the plana before the Commisaion did not
represent what was proposed, and he was again requeating a continuance, although he wae
expecting opposition to any further continuance, since he had contacted the attorney for
the opposition, Mr.-Ralph Callen, over the weekend and advised him that he planned to ask
£or another contittuance - howener, after Mr. Callen had diacussed i.hia with the opposition,
he had informed him the adjoining property ownera still planned to preaent their viewa and
oppoaition at the meeting even though a requeet for continuance was to be asked; and that
platta would-be available by Auguat 30, in time for the ataff to review them prior to the
next meeting. `
Commiaeioner Rowland noted that the property under conaideration by the Planning Commiaeion
already was zoned R-3, and the waivers before the Coa~isaion attached to a conditional uae
permit should have beett rightfully conaidered a variance; however, he could not understand
why aeven waivera were requested, or what changea could be made in any plane that would
change his personal opinion on the propoeal~ but the petitioner ahould be given every right
to be heard, and everyone had a right to request waivera £rom the ordinance. ~rthsrmore,
if the Co~iesion wanted to continue aub3ect petition, they could, but he was prepered to
coneider subject petition at thia meeting.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompaon advised the Commisaion that they might wish to aek the
agent for the petitioner if the City acquired additional"land, would thia necessitate
reviaing hie current requeat sufYiciently wherein the number of waivera now requested
would be reduced aince no zone change wea under consideration, but the baeic concept might
change wherein the development might meet Code requirements.
Commisaioner Gauer indicated that the Commisaion had denied an apartment complex in the
afternoon aession where fivs waivera were requested, and at that time he had atated he
would not vote for any development which did not come basically within the Code require-
msnte unlesa the requeata for waivers ware of a purely technical nature; therefore, any
development proposed where property alreacLp zotted R-3 ahould have plan: which conform
with the site development atandards and requirements of that~zone.
Chairman Allred suggested that each Commiasioner make comment aince the agent had requested
further continuance because the plans wera not what could be developed.
Commisaioner Fsrano ittquired of the agent whether or not he had contacted the petitioner
in the event the City decided to purchase the additional acreage for the park, and would
the reviaed plana indicatq this? Was the decision for a request for continuance hia or
his client~a - with a1t ox~ a portion of the waivera now before the Commiasion?
Mr.. Knisely then reviewed the waivera that might atill be asked: namely, three atoriea
proposed and within 94 feet of a eingle-£amily zone; minimum floor area; minimum building
'.
~.::~~~ r~,~:,
~1
x ~
~ ~
w--~
~
,;
r.e;'Y .~. . .
_. ~
s,o
~, ~ ..
s 1r ~
~4
~~ •
d~. , 1`
a
~s _
~
~ , .
.~ ,
~
!,:
,~ ,
iL 4
r ~
i
,
~; ,,: :,; ., '
`I MINUTES, 'CITY: PI~ANrTING CONIMISSION, Auguat 26, 1968 .
4095
§'f ~~P~~q~
/
~
. ~'b
,~
,i
CONDITION~L IISE - site'area per dwelling unit; the minimum building aetback would be a
PERNIIT'N0.'10 0 technical one-ad;jacent to the YMCA property;.oPf-atreet parking ---
Continued becauee a planaed residential development was propoaed; and the aix-
foot ma.sonry wall adjacent to the park property, which was requeeted `'
, not:~to be built by the Parka and Rscreation Department.
Commi.seioner Farano then noted that requeate for further continuance, in his eet_~ation, ''
ahould be made only in order that the petitiotter might be given an opportunity to euomit
revieed plane which would be~a more acceptable development within the zone than preeently ,` z
;propoaed; fiowevar, this ahould be the last continuance unleea adequate time wsa given the :~4
Co~i.eaion or the Development Servicee Departmenb ataff in order that they might noti£y
the aci,joining property ownere in auffic~ent time, and thia could be not lesa than ten daye `~~`~
prior to the continuaace date because it wae felt the Coffiieaion ahould be Yair in ita '~M
conaideration of the propoeal, and aince the petitioner had not, at the preeent time, ~
presented any teatimony regarding the proposal, nor had the oppoaition been able to present !
their coarmenta, thie continuation ahould be coneidered favorably.
Mr. Ralph Callen appeared befora the Commieaion, represettting the oppoaition, and noted '
that at the last public hearing the oppoaition then expresaed their opittion against any
continuance, and the developanent ahould be oonsidered on ita own merita, rather than any
other eatenuating circumatances. ~
The Commieaion then noted that this wae also indicated at the laet meeting; however, the
problema the petitioner had could not be solved onernight - therefore a mini,mum of two
weeka~ continuance ehould be conaidered.
Commisaioner Rowland noted that the recommendationa of the Capital Improvementa Committee
as to the method of raising money would be by ballot which might or might not pasa; there-
£ore subject petition could be continued for eix monthe in order to ascertain whether or
not the park property would be enlarged, taking a portion of aubject property.
Mr. Kniaely again reiterated the actiott of the City Council at the morning meating regarding
the need for only additional parking and a 10-foot accesarray and felt that a continusnce of
eix months wae out of the question.
Aaeiatant City Attorney A11an Watta noted that the only queation the City Council had-been
approached with was whether or not the City planned to acquire additional property; however,
the sub3ect presenteci then by Mr. Knisely was diacusaed, but he was not aware a deciaion
had been reached - therefore the Commisaion would have to take Mr. Kniaely~s commenta at
face value.
Mr. Watta, in reaponae to Commisaion queationittg reiative to the method of financing the
decision mad~, indicat`ed that if the property wers acquired, aome meana or method of payment
would also have to be determ~ned, whether from prdsent f~nda or through a bond iasue.
Mrs. 13~th Nok~ls, La~7++A HiuB~ 8g~aed the Commiaelon that not only wsa she here for the
last meetin~, it was her underatanding at that meeting that the petition was to have been
heard in the afternoon sesaion; however, ahe was now here for the third time to preeent
her uppoaition and atill was unable to be heard, and ahe wea oppoaed to any further
continuance.
The'Coffiniseioa U•oted that each petitioner requeeting some uae oth~•than the preeent for
his property had a right to sek £or a continuance if evidence were sub~itted that warranted
said continuance. Furthermore, if sub~ect petition were to be contirnied, the atafP ahould
aga3n advise all property owners when the next meeting would be, through a legal notice.
Co~ieaioner Rowland indicated that if the petition were to be continued, it ahould be a
sufficient time so that all looae enda were taken care of:aince uttder a conditional.uae
permit or variance, precise plans would have to be coneidere3. '
The Commisaion then inquired of the etaff why aub3ect petition was submitted in conditional
uae permit fbrm rather than a variance.
Mr. Thompaon advised the Commiasion that when two or more buildin~s were propoeed for the
property, thie would come under the definition of a planned reaidential development, which
aub~ect property was proceeaed under, and the variance requeata were waivera Yrom the
planned reaideatial requirementa sa well as the Rt3 Zone requirements.
The Commiseion then determined that & minimnm of four weaka ahould be aufficient time for
the completion of plane,and any other problems outatanding could be eolved.
-~r..-~v- +r : ,. ~ .~' } [ . :~C
C ~
~
••3~
, ,,•t:
,y
i
~..
~;.,~3 ,~~::.;~
. Q ~ -
MIN[TTES~ CITY PLANDTING CONASISSION, Auguat 26~ 1968
l.J
4096
a y~t
, ~~ ~ . .
~
, ~~
"
,`t
; CONDITIONAL`IISE ='Mr, Callea then requeated a aix weeka~ continuance because he was
PERMIT N0. 10 0 attempti.ng to convince`the YMCA board to purchase aome additional
-~ - -0ontinuea) property from the petitioner as well ae the City~e coneideration of
c.`~ park prop~rty; however, he would need aix weeka in order to have
f varioua aeetinga to determine whether or not thia would be feasible,
},;•; and he feTt that eince the p~etitioner hed asked for aeneral continuancea, that the oppoai-
,~ ':' :tion was also entitled to conaideretion of a continuance.
~~, .;,,
F Mr. Kniaely then requeated conaideration of sub3ect petition at the present hearing.
The Commisaion adviaed Mr: Kniaely that aince he had asked for•two continuancee, an addi-
'"~ ~ tional two weeks over and above that which the Co~i.saion would continue subject petition
`, i,k' would make.little di.f£erence; Purthermore, eince preciae plans were not available, the
ky, ';;1 Co~isaion could not coneider hia requeat ae valid.
'~`• Oo~ni:aeioner'Mungall oPPered~a motion to continue Petition £or Conditicnal IIse Permit No.
1050 to the meeting of October 7, 1968, with the underatanding that no further continuance
would be granted; that the adjoining property ownera again be notified and the property
1~ readvertiaed eince the reviaed plana might require £urther waivera; and that the item be
aet for the evening aesaion, at 7:30 P.M. Commiaeioner Gauer seconded the motion, and
on roll ca11 a11 Commisaioners preaent voted for the motion. MOTION CARRIED,
;~; GENERAL PLdN - PIIBLIC HEARING. IDTITIATED By TAE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 2U1~ East
,.;;x AMIIJIIdIIdT~NO. 107' Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Cali£ornia; to consider an amendment to the
~' HiTl and Canyon General Plan incresaing the denaities to low-medium
;~' AREA DEVELOPMENT and eatabliahing co~ercial symbols, and to consider additional
r,~, PLAN N0. 100 circulation between Imperial Iiighway and Mohler Drive.
I Assiatant Planner David Williamaon reviewed General Plan Amendment No. 107 (copy on £ile
' in the o£fi~~ea of the Deve~opment Servicea Department), indicating the three different
reaidential denaities: low, low medium, and medium. IInder low density there were aingle-
family homee of 7200 square feet;•R-H in the Hill and Canyon area of 10,000 aquare feet;
R=E in the Peralta Hills area with a min3.muai oP one-acre sites and also one-half=acre
'sitee aleo in the Hi11 and Canyon area under County 3urisdiction; that low medium permitted
epartmenta up'to 18 dwelling units per net residentisl acre,and medium denaity permitted
"apartme,nts up to 36 dwelling•asaits per net residential acre. However, the R-2-5000 Zone
, was permitted only as an alternative meana where low-medium or medium denaity had been
' depicted on the General Plan, or where property had alreac~y been zoned for low medium or
medium denaity, and theee homes were all eingle-family homea on 5000-squere foot lota;
that the staff had analyzed the implicationa of the progosed requeat for R-2-9000, and in
order to evaluate the implicationa as to a density increase primarily in terma of public
' facilitiea, ataff had two alternatives to preaent as to land use policy: Exhibit A
indicated a minimum degree of change from current land use policy, with properties north
of Santa Ana Canyon Road deaignatad for low-medium denaity development. It was further
determined that the commercial ahopping center aymbol preeently deaignated at the inter-
section of Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road would be adequate to handle low-
medium density development. Fxhibit B represented a maximum degree of change from current
land use policy; namely, medium density develepment, and the comparative increase in the
number of dwalling units, total populatiott.'increese or decrease, achool population, and
need for additional park.land was further reviewed. It was also determined that if the
deneitiea were to develop as estimated for Exhibit A, it would be necessary to upgrade
the proposed eaet-weat collector aorth of Santa Ana Canyon Road, east of Imperial Highway,
to a aecondary highway, and if Exhibit B were approved, in addition to the upgrading of
the collector street as indicated on F~ibit A, Mohler Drive would have to be upgraded to
a seaoadary highway - or an additional north-south collector linkage ahould be deaignated
between Mohler Drive and Walnut Canyon Road. ~}zrthermore, the projectiona as to circula-
tion were based on an increase of 13 unita or more per gross acre; however, if the denaity
were less than that, the present circulation might be able to handle it. Alao, from the
evi.dence sutm~itted in the Report to the Commisaion, the zoning requeata which were to
follow the general plan amendment raiaed two questions which the Commi88ion would have to
answer - these being: Were higher density land uaes appropriate or deairable in the Santa
Ana Canyoa,-'and if so, then what densitiea and form or pattern ahould thie development take?
Mr. Williameon further emphasized that the General P1an Amendment was a study which was
prepared as a reault of the two requesta £or R-2-9000 Zone and wae not to be conaidered
as a plan for amendment to the General Plan unleas the Commiasion so desired.
Gommiaeioner Rowland complimented the staff in the presen,tation of General P1an Amendment
`No;-TOfi and was happy to note that the atatement was made that the propoeals were studiea,
defining aomething in order to analyze them for the area snd to determine their implications.
<~
._ ':~
s:~
~
I;Y~i
. ~ ~ "~ ".`F}~
~~
,.
~: ~' ` ~ ~~;
O
~
~
~ ..~ ~:~tF.I
-"~' ( MINIITFS, CITY 'PI~ANDTING CONR4ISSION, Auguat 26, 1968 4097
- GENERAL PI~AN - = Co~iasioner Mungall requeated that the co~ercial and school aites
AMENII~NT'NO'. 107 be indicated on Exhibit B; ~hereupon Mr. Williamaott noted that the
gREA DEVElAPPlEN'P high echool aite had been acquired, but the junior high echool and
PLAN N0: 100 el~eatary achool aitea would not be acquired for several yeara.
` Lontinued
~ Mr.'Jack~Ro"se, 5306 Gerda Drive, app,ared before the Commiseion and in-
ar y
• quired if there were ar~yresaon to conaider thia deeirable for the area;
whereupoa the Co~sei'oa-advieed Mr. Roae that since zoning applications had been received
by the Coffiiesion, it was neceseary to have the etudy in order to determine any impiicatione
,_ if a more intenee uae were made of the land thsn projected on the'General Plan.
~F"",~~w'K"'"~ Mr. Rose then noted that he was a resident in the area weater.'ty of Imperial Highway and
~_°>':~~ northerly of tha Santa Ana Canyon Road - although hie propert;/ would not be affected by the
~ general plsa amendment, he wae oppoaed to coneideration of an increase in deneity for the
~' undeveloped land easterl,y of the eingle-family tract since this would have an undesirable
effect on the existing reeidential environment of the area.
'" Mr. Edwr,rd Wadleigh, 21518 Mohler I}rive, appeared before the Commiss;.on, noting that he
- Lved in the area, on a hill on top of the canyon approx3mately three-quartera of a mile
~' from the-proposal, and that their property was presently zoned E4, or one-half acre aitea
wit~ certain astbacka which residenta in the area had found to be desirable; that the
~ purpoee of the County~s original zoning for the canyon area was to maintain a. rur~l, agri-
cultural atmoephere, and thia was the reaeon many of the people i.n that area had moved
;~~?~ there - however, if aubject petitiona and the general plan amendment were approved, thia
,;:;~' could inject undesirable reaidential use within 300 £eet o£ hia property where he was
required to have a mi++im„m 20,000 square £ee~,, very apeci£ic aetbacks, and apartments were
- not desirable in this area; and that many of hia neighbora were of the same feeling regarding
any incraaee in deneity for the Hill and Canyon area.
:~
Mr. Dan McKenna, 21281 Mohler Arive, appeared before the Co~-ieaion in opposition and
,.;.;;~ inquired whether or not the City of Anaheim had already annexed this area.
':^<~~ Chairman Allred adviaed Mr. McKenna snd the sudience that if subject property aere developed,
~'! it would be annexed into the City.
., c{
,, '"~ The'Co~ission further noted that the pro~actions o£ the Hill and Canyon General Plan covered
r.~,,~ a period of fifty yeare, and there was every prospect of tY:is property going into the City
,~ of Anaheim since if any development occurred~ aomeone rrould have to eerve them with public
.~~~~ £acilitiea, and the City of Anaheim would be tfie logical one.
Zoning Supervisor RQnald Thompaon noted that in 1969 a atudy was made by the ataff, at
which time it was determined that the entire danyon area would be i.n the City of Anaheim,
and it was £elt that aome long-berm plan ehould be adopted for that area, and at that
time it was determined that low density wae more desirable - this rras determined after
cooperation and coordination with the property owners in the area, with the school diatricts,
and the Count,y; furthermora, as an e~mmple, ~he achool district made certaitt pro~ec~iona
based on the density of the General Plan so that achoola could be planned £ar enough in
advance for any increase in density, and that the Hill and Canyon General Plan wae needed
for the orderly development of the Santa Ana Canyon when and if land use chenged in the
area. E~zrthermore, one of the moat important things which would have to be considered
would be the serrricing of the area by whatever juriadiction would be moet capable of doing
this, and aince the City of Anaheim was neareat, they undertook the complete study, public
hearing, and adoption of the Hill and Car~yon General Plan. .
Mr. Tom Mc~.illough, 20256 Santa Ana Caa,yon Road, appeared before the Commiaeion and inquired
how long the City had been utilizing the R-2-5000 Zone; whereupon the Commission adviaed
the intereated persona that the zone was eatabliahed approximately two yeara ago.
Mr. McCullough then noted that it was not more than two yeara ago that the City expreased
concern over development of lote that were lesa 'than 7200 aquare feet.
The Co~iasion then noted that the R-2-5000 Zone wae designed and would be approved on
land which was found to be suitable for higher denaities; however, it was not e substitute
for 1?r1, 7.200-aquare foot lots, but was a aubatitute £or R-2 and R-3 zoning.
Mr. MeCullough then noted that multiple-family zoning and homea on emall lots were the
atart of ghettos and were mis-used - however, he rrae oppoaed to any type of development
auch ae R-2-5000 acrosa from his property, and although atatemente were made that this
was a etudy, in all likelihood, the City would adopt th3a since they were deairous of
having more taxes, and he wiahed to aeriously oppose any pro~ectione of high densitq for
~he Hill a.nd Canyon area and it would ha.ve a aerioue effect on the valuea of all propertiea
alreac~y developed in the canyon area,
G
3>.
~ ~ , ~S .
'' '-'c~ti
~J ~~~,
, ::~
~
','
~<<
;;t
~;
- .:.+
lf,
~.F,
,
=~.r~~' 9; 'I ~ .~. '~
~r~ t iY~.f~~ r ~`i r~sfc~~ l~" c'~.~4' 1 }~~ S~i%a"~*~.4y.~"ti` "Y~., ,k y, S-+~ ~ ., `Y- ~ l. ~" ~F~ r M r.
r °~1I c ~~-1 R .. f 0 'r ~ ~ ;:.
. - . . '_'. '_'_. .._ '",..__..~... , / ! ~~.~
Y~ t'. .. ' , ~ ~ . .~ ~ . . ~ . ~ ~
MIN[TTES, CITY PLANNING COi~SSION~ 1„ugust 26, 19b8 4098
GENERAI~~PL•AN -~Mr. Herbert Christian, 116 Tiana Lane, appeared before the Commisaion
AMENiMIIJT N0. 107' in opposition and atated.that eince he had lived in the canyon area,
ARE~1'~DEPEIAPMENT` he felt this had a.potential:-Beverly Hills atmoaphera; however, if
PLAN.'N0.'"T00 R=2=5000 were approved, this would be the start of a slum area, and
Continued urged the Co~i.aeion to conaider thia beautiful area as the potential
Beverly Hille eince many affluent people reaided in the City xhere
good induetry drew the type of people who liked a good residential
area, and°the propoeed•-•R-2-5000 did not have any advantage to the City but many disadvantagee,
and he`was convinced that the builder and other developera would obtain an increaee in deneity
for this area, but this.besutiful area ahould not be developed with undeairable unita where
1` high quality development had alreac~y occurred and should remain as a showcase for the City.
_~ ~`~ Co~iaeioner. Rowland left the Council Chamber at 8:30 P.M.
' Mr. Christian then inquired how it was determined that P.-2-5000 development was a method of
'~ building in the R-3 Zone; whereupon the Comm3.aeion noted that if the General Plan indicated
;;y `~3, then there wae no need for requeeti.ng R-3 zoning - howevsr, at the time the Butler-
Harbour development on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue was atarted, they had requeated
' ~-3 zoning, but when problems reaulted because of the flood Gontrol channel where a park
'~'; originally was propoaed, a requeat was submitted for single-family uae o£ the proparty with
leas denaity than R-3, and thia was the atart of the Rt2-5000 Zone. However, the Commisaion
was flil.ly aware of the problem which might exist at the time the R-2-5000 Zone wea establiahed
becauae since it had been established, many requeats had been received for an increase in
~' ,{ deneity through tha eatablishment of 5000-aquare foot lota Por aingle-family homea, and a~nce
+.;: 6~ the Hill and Canyon General Plan ahowed no indication of inedium denaity for the area, the
`s general plan amendment atuc~y was necessary.
- c:
-_ The Co~3.ssion further expreeaed appreciation that the reaidente of the area were ao con-
'~ cerned with what was propoaed to be developed aince it was the residenta~ City ae well as
-.:`-,::,: thoae living in the main portion of the City, and the Co~isaion needed aome aupport whexi
`"`~ requeate were made for an increase~ in denaity than that projected on the General Plan, and
;'~,~ the only aupport wYruld be the expi~easion of oppoaition by the many residente living in the
~~,,.c".::' area.
,{;i`
~- `~; Commiseioner Farano then noted that the philosophy of the R-2-SOOO Zone was that it could
~4 "``w only be uaed when properties which were otherwise auited for R-3 were propoaed to.be
~'~
~~~ ;~:~;, developed for aingle-family homes with 5000-aquare foot lota, and it did not represent an
;;',r~ alternate to the R-1 Zone.
i~~
r
%;_-, Mr. Warren Williama, 21568 Mohler Drine, appeared before the Commiasion and inquired what
~.,ti annexation proceedings were taking place since they had not been notified of it.
;~~
,,•~ Mr. Thompsan noted that at the time preciae etudies were made by the City of Anaheim relative
`;,;~ to the Hill and Canyoa general area, it rras felt that at some time in the future thia area
~ would aome under the ~uriadiction of the City of Anaheim, and the Planning Supervieor of the
'-~ staff was involved in this atudy aince he was f~7.ly familiar with the area and l~ew of the
"~ proble4es which would occur in any development of the Hill and Canyon area - therefore it
was necessary to have adequate etudies which would indicate proper public facilitiea, such
;~ as aewera, water, roada, park land and achools, and since the staff determined that the
~' en~tire urea, including the Nohl Ranch, should be under conaideration and might be within
^~ the 3uriediction of the City - as well as under the State law - citiea adjacent to undeveloped
,,~,~;y areae could prepare genaral plana for an area which they might influence.
Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinaki noted that he sensed a question in some af tha oppoai-
tionsF minds why the City of Anaheim was hearing this particular proposal, and ia anewer to
that, Anaheim had undertook the general plan for this area and the reason the etaff was
involved was that this area was unincorporated land; that the vaet ma~ority o£ the people
present at thia hearing were under the juriadiction of the County and were not reeidents of
the City and paid their taxes for services by the County; that the County did not have time
available for the stucjy, but they recogaized the need for a general plan atuc~y - therefore
the City prepared this general plan, and copies of the general plan were available to anyone
~intereated in them; that tha bity of Anaheim undertaok the atudy in preparation of the Iiill
and Canyon General Plan with the full lmowledge of the Countq Government, ao for all intent
aad purpoaes, it hae the blesainga of the County Government; that the reason the City of
Anaheim Planni.ng Commisaion wea having a hearing such as this was in moat caeea a developer
who planned to develop property over and above ita preaent uae would need coatinuous use of
sewers, water, etc., and annexation into the City of Anaheim was a logical step with re-
quests being made for prezoning prior to anne~mtion into the City; and that he did not wiah
to convey the feeling that residents in the Hill and Canyon area would be forced to annex
into the City aince rras the prerogative of ownera of the property - however, it took time
for each agency to hear different plana, and building permits would not be isaued until the
pronerty was under the ~urisdiction of the City, but hearinga could be held to present
;;
_; i
9
.
, .. . _.._ .._ ..
i.. _
r-.9~. ~'ti ~~I:
~,,... '
~ ~
0
'~
~~ ~
MINUTFS, CITY PI~ANNING C01~4ffSSI0N, August 26, 1968
,
1~'`~s
;,~
, =;r;
_ - -:;: r
4099
GENERliL PLAN = stadies, and if the proposed reclasaifice:ion easterly of Imperial
AMEN3~~NT~NO:'109 Fiighway had been submitted to the County, they, in turn, would have
AREA'DEPEI;OPMELQ~ '" asked the City of Anaheim far;,their opinion as to the proposal;
PLAN N0. 100 •that these propertq ownera in the area were aeking for a ehange in
Oontinued policy, and the general plan amenc~ent stuc~y wae preaented to indicate
what might happen if a more intenae uae of the land was approned -
therefore the Planning Coa~isaion would have the reaponsibility of
determining~if thia proposal were proper and for the betterment of the entire area,
Mr, Grudzinaki alao noted that it was the ataff~a feeling tliat thair position was clear
'e~ as to the'purposea of intent o£ the stuc~p since there•was no intent on the part of the
i~n'~j ataff to reco~end a change; however, suf£icient datc~ had to be preaented to the Commission
~ to determine whether or not a chAnge was rrarranted, as well ae obtaining the sentiment of
~~ the-reaidenta of the area.
4'` .
~,, . :
; Mr. Williama again appeared before the Cammisaion and noted that if and when their proper-
tiea were annexed into the City, if the City could assure the reaidenta of the area that
thia area would develop in the manner in which it now was developed, without preaenting
1; any poasible drawbacke, then the proposal both for the general plan amendmsnt and the
reclasaificationa being coneidered tonight ahould be denied.
Mr. McG~llough again requested to be heard and noted that Commiasioner Gauer had clariPied
~`~ one•of the reasone Por the R-2-5000 Zone and low medium density; however, he had read
~a aonsiderable propaganda regarding the Santa Ana Canyon area and its beauty - that the zoning
i;\' wou].d be controlled because of thta beauty and the deairability of living there, but i£
, the proposed•general plan amendment and the reclasaifications were approved, this would be
~:i~ contrnrv to all previoua evidence aubmitted to peraons reaiding in this area,
r.;
'* The Go~saion adviaed intereated persons that anyone in the Council Chamber had a right
_'~ to requeat a zoning change within tha Hill and Canyon area, as a policy, and eince the
;:,..;;~ Co~isaion was presented with requeate for a change in zoning, the proparty ownera had the
same right as the o ppoaition to expresa t heir viewpoints at this public hearing, and the
purpoae of the public hearing was to sir everyone~a viewpointa, Furthermore, the only way
4 the City could determine whether or not an atmoaphers or wiahea of an area had changed wae
~;~~ through public hearing, and by the evidence submitted - then the Commiasion and City Council
could determine whether or not these policies should change or ahould remain aa deacribed
,;~ on the Aill and Canyon General Plan.
;,';;. W'
;` Mr. McCullough then asked that thoae present in the Council Chamber in oppoeition to any
;>~:; zotting change in the Ca~yott area indicate ao by raising the hands. A ahowing of hands
;*;~ indicated 31 peraons present in the Council Chamber in oppoaition.
4,;;':;,' Mro McCullough then noted that the Commisaion ahould give careful conaideration to any
~ change in the Hill and Canyon area; that there were other areas within tha City, not necea-
1;'• earily deairable to live in, where a more intense zone could be located in order that all
rR tha reaidenta of the Hill and Canyon area might bs able to enjoy the rural atmoephere of
,,,,,r`~, the Canyon area, and thoae not so deairous of li.ving in thie area could live in areas more
;~:` appropriate for thr~t type o£ land uae - such as proposed under the reclaseification petitions.
:i,
'~ Mr. Leo Deterding, 21102 Santa Ana Canyon Road, noted that he was thoroughly familiar with
the reason for regueating R-2-5000 Por the property; however, no evidence had been eubmitted
~;~ that.low-medium and meclium denaities were appropriate £or sub~ect property, and even if
' level land were neceseary, the hills in the Canyon area could be leveled, destroying the
~: beauty of the areao
The Commiasion noted that eince theae two petitiona for reclaseificatir,n to the R-2-9000
Zone werE to be considered by the Commiasion, the reason the notice was aent to all property
ownera in this general area was because a general plan amenc~ent wsa being conaidered to
detarmine what ef£ect the proposal would have in land uae i£ approved, and the Commiasion
wae attempting to find out the feeling of all the property orraera in the area.
Mr: Deterding then stated that he felt each parson should be given the right to utilizp hia
propercy to its highest and best uae; that many people owning property on the main atreet
through town migkit not find the property deairabZe £or_ residential uae; that he had aome
property ad~acent to the freeway and other further away from the £reeway; that eome of the
land was not suitable for residential zoning and other was in the hill area, but some of
the sentiment expreased by the oppoaition indicated they were not deairous of viewing a
lese deairable development and requested consideration of half-acre aites - therefore hia
point of contention was that property owners should not have ~urisdiction over any more
7.snd than~-thst-whialx they'were paying taxes for because there was aleo a possibility they
wruld aek for a ai.milar zoning for their propertiea.
.:~:~
":~
s
;-~
^s
' ~,
+;~
:
I-
~.~:~. ; E'" .:
tv 4 . S- 51 r ~ ; 2,c v t n _ s•.. ~
t r' i a' -, a .~ " .s,i i A
i f : i ~ r~. Y b f^v . '-J.e ,~.~+i'
-- - . . . `'s . . . _ . . . . . - -- -- -_ . . .. .. . . . ~ .~r~;F~
~
~ .,'
..~r "'' "~. .
~ ; ~
~
,;:::::.
~. ~~ -w~.~
A`
`,.' ,
!~-. . , ,
;~
~ O ~
. . . . ~ '~.;~:;~'
MINBTES, CITY PLANNING CONII~IISSION, Auguet 26, 1968 4100 `
GENERAZ.PLATT - Six.peraona indicated their preeence in favor of subject petitions.
AMEN~TT N0:':107 _ . ~.
AREA;,'DEOF~TAPMENT~ Mr.'Dudley Frank appeared before the Co~ission and stated that he was
P7:ADT~NO.,'.T00"' " "deairous of e~laining the problema hia client had in the uae of his -
••'• ' Gontinued property and wl~{y R-2-5000 wae proposed if aub~ect property were annexed
~ iato the City: that the property wae between the new alignment of the
Rineraide Freeway and the existing Saata Ana Canyon Road - fl~rthermore, it was ad3acent to
poeaible commercial develop~ent; that the property was level and low and was very sandy,
" preaently being uaed for a chicken ranch, which in hia opiniott were basic reasons for
requesting a more intensa uae of the land; that it was his opinion that thoae who owned `
s half-acre aitea had the right to oppoae amaller lots where they were immediately adjao~nt, '_
but aub~ect property ~aas not i~ediately ad3acent to the half-acre lota, and sub~ect `-~_
property had many problema which thoee propertiea in the hiLls did not have. ~rthermore~
there-was~no intent for immediate development of the property because of drainage problams
„ on the lower portions, and until dra3ttage problema £rom the freeway were resolved, devel- f
opmeat could not occur on aubject property. , -
Mr. McG~llough then noted that thoae in opposition were not opposed tc development of
property - they were oppoaed to the type of development -~aller, more denaely used lota,
and the propoaed aize lots would materially affect the property in the hill area, but they
were not oppoaed to 7200-aquare foot lots aince this type of houaing would preaent a better
oommunity than the smaller lota.
I Commissioner Farano noted that ae a member of the Planning Commiasion, he was concerned ;
i about development of the Hill and Ca~yon area, but some of the opposition had indicated
concern regarding the R-2-5000 - eince the City had homes denelop over the past two yeare, i
~ thia type of home was not as crowded as though apartmenta were developed. Howener, his .'
main concern was with the denaity proposed and the living environment for the Hill and ~ ~~
a;;,,
Canyon area. ,~
Co~3.eaioner Farano f~rther noted that the R-2-5000 homea which had been deneloped in the
City of Anaheim had sold on the market rattging in price between.~25,000 tznd ~0,000.
~':r: MeG~].longh then noted that he had visited these homes, located on the north aide of
Arangethorpe Avenue, and in hia estimation, the proposed type of homes was not desirable ; „~;
for the Iiill and Canyon area, and in his eatimation, there was no place in the Hill and }
Car~yon area_where a 5000-aquare £oot development could be placed - however, where property '
was immediately adjacent to the freeway or commercial usea, consideration might be given
to apartmenta.
~ ~
A letter of oppoaition wae read.to the Commiasion. ~
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~
Commiasioner Gauer noted that he had previously voted againat R-2-5000 zoning, and sa he ,
read the real eatate aection of the Los Ang6les newapaper, many areas were developing with
~55,000 to ~100,000 homes, and he was in agreement with the statement that the Hill and
-- Canyon area could be the Beverly Hil'la of ~naheim and was the only place left for the City
to have an elite reaidential area aimilar to the onerall plan of development of Nohl Ranch;
even though development was progreasing rather alowly, there was a need for high quality
residetttial dnvelopment in the Anaheim area - there£ore the reaeon for having a General
Plan was to pro,ject what the City felt was the higheat and beat development £or an area;
and both Commiseionera Allred and Farano had indicated it was their fesling the Iiill and
Ca~{yon area would be the elite or Beverly Eiilla area of the City of Ana~aim, and should
remain that way.
~ ;~' Co~i.ssioner Gauer offered Reaolution No. PC68:-265 and moved for ita pasasge and adoption,
~"~ aeconded by Commisaioner Farano, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amend-
f~ ment No. 107 be disapproved on the basis that no evidence had been submitted that a land
~~ ~j uae chan e was wasranted in the Hill and C
~ ~-~'y~,~ ,~~ B a~y~on area, and that exhibits preaented by the
,, ~v a.~, ataff were not acceptable for alternativea. {See Reaolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COI~IISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Allred.
NOFS: CONII~ffSSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COI~IISSIONERS: Camp, Herbat, Rowland.
Commisaioner Gauer informed the sudience that Commisaioner Rowland had to leave the Council
Chamber prior to roll call because of prior co~3.tmenta; however, he wiehed to convey to
the a~Ydience that he was in agree~ent with denial of the propoaed general plan amendment.
~
~
~~-q r:~II'
- ~ ...,....
r._,: ;. _
l,~;l ~' ~:J
MIN[TTES, CITY'P7~ANNING COMMISSION,, Auguat 26,.19~ 4101
GENERAL.PLAN '; - Mr. Williameon then.noted for the Commisaion that although Area
,~AMEN~F~TT'~N0::107 :' Development Plan No. 100 was advertised and all etudy da.ta wae
.:.. ,
~AR,EA:~DEVEIAPMENT`' "prepared to provide for adequate.6irculation,'it was recommended
,^,~PLAN ~NO. 100 ` tl~at. it be .held in abeyance until' development o£ the area became
~Coiitinued a rea].i,ty .-:then,it:could be xeadvartiaed for public hearing for
fl.iture consideration.
-Commiasioner Farano o£fered a motion-to hold in'abeyance any conaideration o£ Area Deve1-
- opment,.Plan'No. 100`until properties•in`the Eiill and'Canyon area were to be deneloped, in
order that'all.atudiea could be updat~d with'this future development. Co~i.saioner Gauer
aeconded the motion. MOTION CAR.RIED.
RECLASSIFICATION - PIIBLIC HEARING. PRUDENTIAI, SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, 526 Weat
N0. 65=69-20 I,as 25znas Drive~ San Gabriel, California, Owner; HIRSCO CORPORATION~
2021 Fast 4th Street, Suite 108, Santa Ana, Cali£ornia, Ageat;
TENTATIVE MAP OF requeating that praperty described as: An irregularly ahaped parcel
TRACT'N0. 6717 of approximately 9.8 acrea, having a£rontage of approximately 1,223
feet on the north side of Old Saita ~na Canyon Road and a maximum
depth of approximataly 56? feet, the easterly boundary of said parcel
being approximately 270 £eet weat of Imperial Highway, as measured along Santa Ana Canyon
Road, be reclaseified from the R-A, AGRICIILT(TRAL, ZONE to the R-2-5000,ONE-FArffLY,ZONE.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQIIEST: DEVELOPER: HIRSCO CORPORATION, 2021 Eaet Qth Street, Suite 108,
Santa Ana, Cali£ornia. ENGINEER: Anacal Ehgineeri.ng Company,
222 Eaet Li.ncoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing the
subdivieion of approximately 9.8 acres into 53 R-2-9000 zoned
lots.
Asaiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown noted that aubject petition was one of the two pro-
poeala £or heavier density conaidered as part of the general plan amendment, noting the
location of the property, the exiating uaea, and the propoaed use.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompaon advised tre Commisaion that because of circulation
. probleme and secesa'to better aerve the needa`.of ¢ll;propertiea in the immediate area,'
I the`DenaTopment Servicee•ataff-recommended that the tentative tract be continued for two
'~ weeks in order that'the staff might meet with the developera relative to this problem.
Mr. Calvin Queyrel, engineer for the developer, appeared before the Commisaion and noted
that beoause of the size and shape of the parcel which wea located between the new align-
ment of the Riveraide Freeway and 01~3 Santa Ana Canyon Road, a more iatense uee of the
property was proposed - however this would be a lower denaity than R-3; that the property
oa the south aide of O1d Santa Ana Canyon Road, owned by Mabel and Ben Yorba, in all
likelihood would develop for more intenae uae than single-family; and that immediately to
the east of suoject property, a resolution of'intent for C-1 zoning had already been
approved by the City Council, but no development had taken placa. Furthermore, aubject
property would be ad~acent to the off-ramp of the future freerray, and the ataPf had
recoa~ended tha accesa road exit from sub~ect and adjoining property be relocated from
Maude Lane to the center of subject property, creating further problems relativa to
development of the property, and that the proposed developer planned to conatruct eimilar
homes as he had constructed in Santa Ana which were in the price range or $2~,000 to
~29,000 - however the consideration before the Commiseion should not be the price of the
homes proposed, but whether the land use was proper for the area.
The Commisaion inquired as to the reason £or withdrawal o£ the previ.ous reclaeaification
to R-2 prior to ita conaideration by the City Council; whereupon Mr. Queyrel noted that
under the previous petition, no precise alignment rras lrnowa as to the Riverside Freeway
nor rras commercial zoning a.pproved adjacent to sub~ect property.
The Co~trmission then noted that no land use change had taken place in the area since the
previous conaideration Por R-2 had been conaidered by the Planning Commission, at which
time the Planning Commisaion had recommended denial of Rr-2 and approval of R-1.
Mr. Queyrel then inquired of the ataff whether or not aubject,property had ever been
diacusaed for other than low denaity; whereupon Mr. Thompaon noted that'no petition had
ever been preaented prior to the adoption of the Hill•and Canyon General Plan, although
the plan indicated subject property rras in the vicinity of the interaection of.two
freeways'- the high school at the lower interaection and low denaity on each aide of
Imperial Highway - and that the City Council had approved the C-1 zoning, but the Co~i.ssion
haa ae~ea ~t.
Mro Queyrel noted then that if the acceae to Old Santa Ana Can,pon Road from Maude Lane
were cloaed and reloct3.ted easterly, this would place a frontage road along aubject property
for entrance to the R-1 tract to the weat.
~
~
~
~
~
t
;
i
~
~. . .
~
~"~ ` . ~,,...~i
` ,.
K J.:,
C~
~~r~ ~~ ~. . . . . . ~. ..
- MIN[TTES, CITY PLANNING COi~IISSION, Auguat 26, 1966 . ,G~02
REELASSIFICATION -'Mr, Thompaon noted that he would heeitate to aecottd guesa the Co~ai.ssion
N0. 68-69=20 'or`City Council rel.ative to development of the Yorba property, and that
TENTATIVE MdP OF 'the co~ercial symbol depicted on the General Plan ottly indicated that
TRACT N0. 6~1 '' the £orm of co~ercial`uae would be appropriate for ihat general area,
Continued) and-although a reaolution of inteat to C-1 had been approned, it was
difficult to determine what`would be developed on the property.
Mr. Queyrel-then notedcthat, in hia opinion, the Yorba property wae not appropriate for
single-family reeidential uae, and if aub~ect property were required to develop £or R-1,
then~th`e property rrould be sandwiched between commercisl on the east, a more intenee uee
on the Yorba property, and the freeway on the north - therefore, the proposal for lit2-5000
merited favorable conaideration.
Mr. McCullough, 20256 Santa Ana Canycn l~oad,.appeared before the Co~iasion and noted that
the propoeed depelopmeat was an example why oppoaition was expressed to the general plan
emendment,and any development of the propert~y easterly of Impsrial Freeway, aince the
petitioners were propoeing a more intenae use of the land with 50~foot wide lota and
5000-square foot lots adjacent to developed Rr1, 7200-aquare foot lots.
Mr. William Quinan, 11~, Maude Lane, appeared before the Commissiott in oppoaition, indicating
that the propoaed development would be abutting hia property, and that he was opposed to any
increase in denaity in the Santa Ana Canyon since the axea was not conducive to higher
denaity uees; that reaidents o£ the area were a11 creaturea of environment and were well
aware that fire hazarda exiated in tliis area aince the last fire in the Canyon ~rea had
reached the gates of their property, and obvious~y any increase in denaity of homea would
compound the hazard - although he realized they had a choice in purchaeing their propertiea
in thie area even though there might be hazarda. Furthermore, the exiating Saata Ana Canyon
Road wae now a death trap, and if high~ir denaity were permitted in~this area, this would
increaee the number of people aad chancea for more fatalitiea, and for thie reason he wae
oppoaed to the propoeed development.
,.
~..i'':
~'.
-> .
~
~ <i;;
i
X.
Mr. Isos, 150 Maude Lane, appearad before the Co~isaion and noted that if the property "~'~~
to the weat were appropriate for R-1 develo
pment, then almost the same conditiotta were ;?~~
applicable - the Santa Ana Canyon Road ott the aouth and the new £reeway right-of-way ott
be no rea
h ,,`
~~
'
son w
y this continuatiott of It 1 7200=aquare
~
footnlota could notrbeecontinued ~ ~
t~
s
" ';~
b1r. Queyrel, in rabuttal,'{-oted that it was their'intent to provide for an underground
pipe]3ne ~s a replac~ent for the S
A.V
I
a ~ (L,,k
a,e
4~,>{
.
.
, can
l which ran along the eoutherly boundary
of aubject property, which would rove the e e
or
~
t ;i~'
~`''
a
e
P y preaen
ly exiating, se well ae
eliminate a hazard; however, it wae their fee]3ng that because of.the extenuating cireum- ;~1~;
ikv
atances and ~he size and ahape of the property, Rr2-5000 rras more appropriate. ' ;~1'~
~!:
THE HEARING WAS CIASED. +;
`i,',
~, ;~,
:,-
Diacuseion rras held
by the Commieaion relative to the evidence eubmitted, noting that eince
the Co~;asion's previoue conaideration in 1965
l
d ~".
~
, no
an
uee change had taken place to
warrant conaideration of a more intettae land uae for the property; that the same problema
that exiated previously atill were there; and that since the property to the weat.had been
eub~ected to aimilar circuastances, aub~ect property could be develo
ed f
R
1
00
p
or
-
, 72
-aquare
foot lota.
Commisaioner Gauer of£ered Resolution No. PC6B-266 and moved for ita passage and adoption
,
seconded by Co~isaioneT Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for
I
Reclassification No, 68-69-20 be denied ~or R-2-5000 zoning; however, the Comm3.asion
further felt that sub3ect property was develo
abl
f
R
1
7200 '~
p
e
or
-
,
-aquare foot lote, and,
' there~ore, recommended conaideration of R-1 zoning for aub~ect property
aubject to
!
,
conditiona. (See Reaolution Book) ~
On roll call the £oregoing reaolution was pasaed by the following vote:
AYFS: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Mungall, allred.
NOES: C~IISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COI~ALZSSIONERS: Camp, Herbat, Rowland.
,
~
M'r. Thompson noted for the Commisaion that the circulation relatine ta Tentative Map of
Tract No. 6717 would be similar, whether or not it was developed far R-l o
R
2
r
-
, and it
was the deaire of the ataff to meet with the engineer and work with the adjoining property
h
owners and t
e developer in order to provide proper circulation to serve a11 theae properties
if this property were to develop for any t
pe of r
id
ti
l
y
es
en
a
use; ther9fore, continuation of
the tract map should be considered.
'
' ;;
-. :___ _ ~'
~"`' ;°'?,
~ ~r / ~~~Y~ ~' ~ ~RJ, ^~ ry 1 hT p'~~f 'IS ~ T ~ 1 ., f .J"
~ .
~
~
V
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING WI~ffSSION, Auguat 26, 1968 /i.103
RECLASSIFICATION - Co~issioner Gauer offered a motion to continue Tentative Map of ~act
N0. 68-69-20 No. 6717 to the meeting of Sept~ber 7.Y, 1968, in order to allow time
TENTATIVE"MAF-OE'-`~ for the staff to meet with the adjoining property ownera, the developer,
TRACT'N0. 6 1 and the-engineer to reaolve circulation problems, and that the revised
Continued) tract map should reflect the lot aize to conform with the R-1 Zone.
Co~issioner Mungall aeconded the motion. MOTION Ci.:.RIED.
RECLASSIFICATION' - PUBI~IC HEARING. MR. AND MRS. WILLIS R. NEWSON AND MR. AND MRS. W. L. .
N0: 68-69=18 HOT,LOWEGL, c~o Jim Morris, 730 North ~clid Street, Anaheim, California,
Ownera; DUDLEY B. FRANK, l~7.9 Weat 4th Si;reet, R~Zatin, California, Agent;
requeating that property described as: R~o contiguous parcele of land
of appruximately 25 acrea total area on the north aide of Santa Ana Canyon Road, extending
eastward from the northerly extettsion of Walnut Canyon Road as followe: Parcel A- An
irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of appro~dmately 700 feet on the north
aide of Santa Ana Canyon Road and a maximum depth of approximately 1,250 feet, the weaterly
boundary being approximately along the norther~y extenaion of Walnut Canyon Road; and
Parcel A- An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage o£ approximately 305 feet
on the north aide of Santa Ana Canyon Road and a maximum depth o£ approximately 1,050 feet,
the westerly boundary being contiguoua with the easterly bouridary of Parcel A, be reclasai-
fied from the COUNTY A1, AGRICULTURE, DISTRICT to the Rr2-;~00, ON~FAMILY, ZONE.
Aesiata.nt Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of aubject property, the usea
eatabliahed =n close proxi.mity, and current zoning on the property, not3ng that subject
property was under conaideration for annexaLion into the City of Anaheim, lmown as Santa
Ana Canyon Annexation No. 2; that the agent for the petitioner indicated no tract map would
be filed eince time was neceseary becauae of drainage problema which might develop becauae
of the new freerray alignment northerly of sub~ect property.
~Mr. Dudley Frank, agent for the petitiotter, appeared before the Commission and noted that
although aub~ect property was not indicated on the General Plan map, the propertiea were
under annexation and were northeasterly of Walnut Canyon Road, approximately 1,300 feet
south of ths Riverside Freeway and the Santa Ana River; that bacause of a large increa~e
in the asaesaed valuation o£ the property and taxea which had increased bpcauae of thie,
the property ownere were having:a dif£icult time meeting expenaes on th:: '..•operty; that
it was his opinion development of expenaive homes rearing on the Riversic,., P'reeway would
be Iogical, and medium priced homes wauld be proposed for aubject property; tbat the siza
of the lote, as discuased under the genera7. plan amendmant, could not be rationalized
aince the type of development was more indicative of what would be reasonable and proper
for the property, and both a good and bad development could be erected on either a large
or sma11`lot, and if the zoning code could regulatethe aize of a home on theae lots, then
perhaps a more desirable development would reault rather than having alums - however, he
did not feel the developer would conatruct a alum-type home.
Mr. Frank then noted that he agreed with the commenta made that the geneie 1 area wae one
of the niceat areas in and around Anaheim, and the area could support a nice light to
medium denaity development; that eub~ect property wae a level parcel and relatively low,
with sanc~q soil and £looding conditions; that presaures and requeats for thie type of
land use were constantly experieaced, and people coming to the City of Anaheim n.eeded
some place to live ao long as the area was attractive, and thie presaure would continue
for all undevalcped land - there£ore, this was one of the reasons for so many requeata
for the propoaed zoning, but it did not mean a cheap, ahoddy-type development r~ould be
constructed.
Commissioner Fareno noted ;hat the Commiasion had heard many timea the economics atatementa
made by varioua peis~xis asking £or a higher density than that pro3ectdd on the General Plan,
with the oppoaition which had been presented tunight always before the Commisaion - however,
he was curioua to lrnow what there was about this area that would justify the Commiasion to
malce a change in the living environment - whether one thought in terma of an ulder houee
on large acreage or a good home on a smaller lot, but the opposition presented before the
Commiasion indicated no change in tha area was desired; that it was difficult for the
Co~isaion to coneider an isolated piece of property in the center oP an area since this
island gradua7.ly became larger becauae ad3oiniig property owners felt that they had every
juatification to request a more intenae land use once one parcel was approved for a more
intenae uae; that if no evidence had been aubmitted which would indicate unuaual problems
in the development of the property, then a change in land use should not be brought before
the Commiseion since it was difficult to judge a land uae change where plana were auhmitted,
and it wae almoat imposaible to conaider a land uae change where no juatification exteted,
whether in a precise or a general area,
Mr. Frank noted that he felt the proposed reclasaification would not present such a vast
lsnd uae change.
F6 ~
~ 'r~' w
.~~~' ~ ~ ~ ~,
~ ,~
~ . ~~.,wi~.
;,. ,~
-.. ~r
.. .y
; ~~
'~~
, ...._ '; ?~
i~} r__t~'}~ '.r'~ 15~~ -
~s ~ z fi'¢",~r~
<tx +,rr~c
~ ~~~^~ ~~ r ~ }L
r"~i7
~~
~
;
:
~£ ^^' ', m ~-y t . .: ; ~., .y
S € ~~5
Y
:
j
~
t'
t
{
Y
M1 ~ ~
~
-
~f ~.;
.. ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . . .
~ . . '
:
: ;j
` _ . . . . . . . . . ! ~.
. /~ .. . _ . . ~~ . . . ~_
~ .. ~~~.i7
. , -
~' MINIITES, CITY PLANNING COt~ffSSION, August 26, 1968 /~.104
,
~
RECLASSIFI.CATION - The Co~iseion further noted that in the paet where. R-2-5000 had been
~
`
' N~. 68-6
18
requested; notonly.were plans of the type of homes presented, but a
~.. ',Coritiriued tract'map `siiorri.ng .the layout of streeta, drainage, etc., was also '
,~
, preaented to the Commisaion for coneideration - therefore, the proposed ~~
Y
' ' requeat was aomewha.t difficult to evaluate for an area which had been "`'
3t,; projected £or low-density'residential use. };
''' The Co~iasion aleo noted that evidence.had been presented before that 7200-aquare foot '"~
' lote provided:a:good living environment, attd eince 7200-equ~e foot lote were of auch a ''{'
size that the privacv Which the Tesidente of the`Eill and Ca~yon area were deairous of
~~
`
~ having more nearly represented their feelinga, thie ehould be considered. However, the .;~
~
~~.'
~ denaity proposed:rrae_ being unalterably opposed by the adjoining property ownera eince they ~:
~
~
~; expressed the fear that approval of a more intenae uae would encourage other prnperty ownera
to
e
t
the ~~
i
~ requ
a
.
eame; that even co~ercial development propoaed £or the Hill and Canyon area
'
~
? had
an entirely different concept than normal commercial developments in the City - there-
_ fore 3t was unreasonable to asaume that 5000-equare.foot lots would be an eacegtable use
; ,, for thie general area.
'
' D1r. ~ank noted that many of the homea in the beach area had lote coneiderably smaller
~!
~=~ than that being propoaed.
~- Commiasioner Farano noted that comparieott of the living environment of the.beach area could
= not be made to that in the Hill and Canyon area.
r:r,,
yi Mr. Frank then inquired whet~er or not approval could be tied in with specific plane.
; ~~ ,
''''' Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompeon noted that in eome areas the ataf£ had roco~ended no "
f ~ plana aince many times in the paet approval in accordance with planb did not assure a '~~
:~;
~.,
good houae, but in eome areas which were eapecially critical~ plana had been requirad. ~ ~-sP
J~
;., Mr. Charlea Williama, 21?_/.6 Peralta Hilla Drive a
, ppeared before the Commisaion and noted
-
; that although he wae a conaiderable dietance away from this area, they were cloaer to
~-';
'' aubject property than they were to the Peralta Hille in general; that although sub~ect
,r~, property rras only a sma11 ieolated 25-acre
, , parcel, this would aet a pattern of development
;.;
r~
af Y~ ,
and the Peralta Hills required sll lota 3n that area to be one acre in size, while on Mohler ,
,~ Drive many homes pxiced;~80,000 and up were being constructed on one-half acre parcele ';'
~J~,~r ,
but the Peralta Iiills people were now looking at attractive homea, and if the propoaed ;~~
~~~ development were approved, they would be looking directly acrosa the freeway at a hodge- `
i
,, ~~
~
+ podge of roofs which would deatroy the beauty of thie entire area. Furthermore
he lmew ~ ~
I
~{
~.
`~~ ,
o£:many people who had come to the Peralta Hills and Hill and Canyon area because they ~ `
``~ were desirous of having a more desirable living environment in the small homes they presantly ~
`~~
' occupied, and he wiahed to reaffirm the commont made by aeveral other people that thia area
`
cF ~ would be the Beverly Hills o£ Anaheim if caution were taken and developed accordingly. !
,.;~ Mr. Ed Wadleigh, 2T518 Mohler IJrive, appeared before the Commieaion in oppoaition and noted ~
~ that aommenta made by the agent for the petitioner that the propoaed request rrae necessary
'~ becauee o£ the number of people who were coming into the City was no reeaon for requeating
th '
e zoning proposed, aince any peraon who had knowledge o£ property valuee would know that
,~~
~ the property owners would be nbtaining a conaiderably larger amount for their propertiea
~
;~ ,
but this would only benefit the property awners and would create an untenable aituation
~,~
'
' for pereons now reaiding in the area whoae propertiea were presently being asaesaed at s
; conaiderable amount.
::;~
Tr ~
_;~
'
Mr. Tom MeCullough again appeared and indi,cated that his atatements made under the General
,-
, Plan Amendment No. 10? were also applicable to aub~ect petition.
T ~
' m~
~'7
+ Mr, Otto Henning, 20266 Santa Ana Canyon Road, eppeared before the Commiasion, noting that ~
a his property was approx3mately 1,000 feet from aubject property, and statements made that ~
~a~Y~
,~ the oppoaitibn was too great'a'diatance away to be affected by. the proposal were erroneous;
that Mr. McCullou
h
lso liv
d
xi
~~
~~`xr.
~~a,
'
, g
a
e
appro
mately 1,000 feet away, and he was also oppoaed to
an chan e in land uae for the area as well ae the
Y g propoaed R-2 zoning.
.
. ~
~ ~
x
~
r;4
~~~z
s~ ;,, .
.
., . ~ , . . . . . .
A letter of oppoaition was read to the Commiasion. ~
~`~~
~' x~
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~.
~( Co~isaioner'Farsno o£fered Reaolution No. PC68-267 and moved for ite paesage and adoption
s
M'~ ,
econded Commiasioner Gauer
b3' , to recommend to the City Council thst Petition for Reclaeai-
fica
tion No. 68-69
18 b
di
,~~~
` .
-
e
sapproved for R-2-5000 Zone; however, coneideration ahould be
given to approval of R-1, One-Family Residential
Zone with 7200-a
uar
f
t l
t
"~
' ,
q
oo
e
o
a,on the
basis that the ro osed zonin
P P g by the petitioner would have a deleterioua e£fect on the
~-~~
:~ ad~oining land uses and could set a precedent for development of a more intenae uae of all
~ the land north of the Santa Ana Canyon Road. (See Reeolution Book) '
i
i
: ~
,
-'.~q'. S fC~i.
~t..
~. ~'~,~~'~~" F'i~.~ ~g,~~ ~}~n~e n -r~,~ Ty ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,
~
y
' ~ ~ .'{ ~'s ~s' s~n:x.
~ :~s
,
j
'
" '
. ji
~ ~
~ ~
, . ..
. ~ . , ~
. ,.
.
t
~ :i~ . . .. ~ -~_.,. '_____'_ "_._~_ __
`
~ . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ . ~
MIN[TTES, CITY PL`ANNING C02~4IISSION, Auguat 26, 1968 4105
RECLASSIFICATION - On ro_ll ca11 ashe foragoing reeolution was pssaed by the following note:
N0. 68=6 '-18'
Contiiiued 6YFS: CONAiISSIONERS: Fareno, Gauer, Mungall, A11red.
NOFS: COI~LCSSIONERS: None.
ABSIIJT: COhIl~[IS3IONERS: Camp, Herbet, RQwland.
;_
AMENII'~TT"TO' TITLL~ZF3' - PUBLIC HEARING. IIJITIATID BY THE CITY PLANN2NG CONIl~IISSION,
~~ ' 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to conaider an
_ amendment to Chapter 1$r18, Raeidential Eatate, Zone, to
,~ ,. -~,"~~.'.. incorporate fire protectioa for all main structures.
~ xy
~ ' Asaietant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the propoeed amendment to the R-E Zone.
~, '
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompaon noted ths,t when the R-E Zone X~~~i originally been estab-
- liahed for the Peralta Hille•area, coneideration wae given only ~~~ ;_rivate acceea raads
+, and no coneideration wae given to public, ded3.cated etreeta on which normally a fire
- hydrant would be required spaced every so maqy feet, and aince thia had been omitted from
~.~~ the original writing of the IirE Zone, it wae determined by the atafY that an amendment
_ ahould be made to provide for fire protection for all atructuree located in the Peralta
Hille area.
Aesietant Developmeat Servicee Director Robert Mickeleon noted that certain lota in thie
area by dePinition required fire protection,: and the " propoaed amenc3nent would take
care of ell fire protection requirementa for thia general area.
The Commieaion inquired,whether or not waiver could be requeated of thia section o£ the
~ code; whereupon'Mr.•Mickeleon replied that thia could not be posaible aince they would
have to~Zirovide their own fire bydrant on their property~ and that aincc~ the main water
'~i linea were in the atreet, auy developer could provide these fire hydrant-s without any
j; diPficulty - however, fire protection to other private lote off of acces3 roada would be
', y at the expenee of the property owner.
, ~;~ Office ~gineer Arthur Daw advieed the Go~aieeion +: ai; t~e City of Anaheim did not preeently
s` ~ ;~?~ provide water to'the Peralta Hille area eince they were aerved by the Peralta Hi11s Water
, I Company.
~ ,~
r ;~ ,i TF~ HEARING WAS CLOSED.
, ;
~ ~'~~ Co~3.saioneT Farano offered Re~olution No. PC68-268 and moved for ite paesage and adoption,
;;~1 eeconded by Commiseioner Gauer, to reco~end to the City Council that an amen~aent to
r Title 18, Chapter 7.5.18 of the Anaheim Munici al Code be a roved
x; P pp by the deletion oP
F. Section I8.18:030, Subparagraph (7-d) and by the addition of Section 18.18.030, Subpara-
`'~~ graph'(9), Fire Protection - No main atructure shall be located more than four hundred
feet from a etandard £ire hydrant with ataemer connections. (See Resolution Book)
. :,~
< '+~:
''i+ On roll call the foregoing resolution was paseed by the following vote:
7'
,;',~ AYFS: COMMISSIONERS: Farano~ Gauer, Mungall, Allred.
; j; NOES: C~4IISSIONERS: None.
' ~:~ ABSENT: COI~SISSIONERS: Camp, Herbet, Rowland.
:~ . ,
`;;: ADJOURI~4IE~TT - There being no further buainesa to diecuee, Commiseioner Mungall
offered a motion to ad~ourn the meeting. Co~i.seioner Gauer
aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
s~ ,, ~~
~4 ~ The meeting ad~ourned at 10:00 P.M.
Reepoctflill,p sub~itted,
Li~~
ANN KREBS, SeaTetaxy
A.naheim City Plenning Co~ieeion
:~ ~.
. ,i .. .. .. i . .
i
~:``..r.~..: ~ M ;:
4 +•-*.~: ,..;,,k cr
'1