Loading...
Minutes-PC 1968/11/18v --°_._ ~-~,~~n~= ~amp, rarano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, . ABSENI' - COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. PRESENT - Assistant City Attoxney: City Engineer Representatives: John Dawson Zoning Supervisor: JaY Titus and Robert Jones Associate Planner: Ronald Thompson Assistant Zoning.Supervisor: ~rvin Krieger Planning Commission Secretar pat Brown PLEDGE OF Y° Ann Krebs ALI.EGIANCH - Commissioner Herbst led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of November 4, 1968 were approved with the I'HE MINUTES following correction on motion by Commissioner Mungall, seconded by Commissioner Camp, and MOTION CARRIED: Page 4186 - Approval of the Minutes should have been: "October 21, 1968". TENTATIVE MAP OF•- DEVELOPER: BROOKHURST SHOPPING CENTER, 2293 West Ball Road, Anaheim, TRACI' N0. 6785 California. ENGINEER: Technological Engineering Corporation, 4921 Durfee Avenue, Pico Rivera, California. Subject tract, located to `the north'and west of the northwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Ball Road and extending westerly to the City limits and northerly to - _. ! Vancouver Drive, containing approximately 21.9 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 13 G 1 zoned lots. Subject tract was continued from the meeting of Octob~r 21, 1968 due to the fact that the State Subdivision Map qct was being revised effective November 13, 1968, which would : include commercially developed properties from the requirement of filing and recording a tract map when such properties were to be subdivided. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown noted the location of subject property and the history of the reason the tract map was originally filed, together with the fact that the revision of the Subdivision Map Act had become effective and the tract was no longer necessary, and that the engineer of the tract had submitted a request to withdraw said tract. Commisaioner Camp offered a motion to grant approval of the request for termination of a11 proceedings on Tentative Map of Tract No. 6785 on the basis that the tract was no longer necessary to comply with the Subdivieion Map qct. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. RUDY A. AND ELLA E. HEMpN, 8622 South 'NO 68-69-40 Orange, Olive, California; EDWIN W. AND'CLARA M. BRELJE, 232 West Lincoln, Orange, California; qND CITY OF ANAHEIM, 204 East Lincoln VARIANCE.NO. 2026 Avenue, qnaheim, California, Owners; pxoperty described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land containing approximately 29 acres TENTAI'IVE MAP OF at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Nohl-Canyon Road I'RACT NOS. 6734, (Walnut Canyon Road), having a maximum depth of approximately 2,800 6771 AND 6772 feet from Santa qna Canyon Road and a maximum depth of approximately 600 feet from Nohl Canyon Road. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURpL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLA~Si-F3~qt7AN.; R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ~~~~U D VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, 4207 ~ , ~ _::_ ,.. ~:.- _~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ MIf7UTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 18, 1968 q208 'RECLASSIFICATION -,TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: ~ 'N0. 68-69-40 ` DEVELOPER: INESTERN LAND SAI.ES,.230 East 17th Street, Costa Mesa, California„ ENGINEER: VOORHEIS-TRINDLE-NELSON, INC., 13794 Beach VARIANCE N0. 2026 Boulevard, Westminster,'California:. ` Tentative Tract No'. 6734 - 23 nroposed R-1 zoned 1ots. TENTATIVE MAP OF Tentative`Tract No. 6771 - 39 proposed R-1 zoned lots. ' TRACT NOS.-6734, Tentative Trect No. 6772 = 40 proposed R-1 zoned lots. 6771 AND 6772 (Continued) Subject petitions and tracts were continued from the meeting of November 4, 1968 to allow time to work out circulation problems relative to subject'and ad3oining properties. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, notix~g t}ie.acreage involved, the request for reclassificatioo to R-l with waivers, and the fi::ing of three subdivision tracts; that the petitions were continued from the meeting of Novembei 4 in order that the problems of vehicular circulation might be resolved for a number of undeveloped parcels to the west as well as subject property; and that the Traffic Engineer had now determined that wHen.Hillcrest Street was eventuall.y extended southerly from Tract No. 6734 to Nohl Ranch Road, this would provide adequate vehicular circulation for both the tracts proposed and future residential development in this area. The representative of the petitioner indicated his presence to answer ~uestions and noted ' that they concurred with the recommendations of the Interdepartmental Committee. ' No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. .,~;!~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Brown, in response to Commission questioning, noted that the traffic engineer was of ~' the opinion that the road could be cut out if proper terrain leveling were used. }~ '~ Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-329 and moved for its passage and adoption, , i seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- - fication No. 68-69-40 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolut-on Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. NOES: ' COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC68-330 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2026, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6734, seconded by Commissioner Camp, and MOTION CARRIED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That should this subdivision be developed as more tt~ n one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 2. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6734 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 68-69-40. 3. That Streets "A" and "B" shall be recorded as Hillcrest Street and Hillcrest Circle. 4. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. .a ~ r. l, . ..... ..-::. j .. _, , .y_._.__:_,~._.____. =---- ----= O ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 18, 1968 4209 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner, Herbst offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of N0. 68-69-40 Tract ;~o. 6771, seconded by Commissioner Camp, and MO?ION CARRIED, subject to the following conditions: VARIANCE N0. 2026 1. That the vehicular access rights except at street and~or alley TENTATIVE MAP OF openings`to Santa Ana Canyon Road,, shall be dedicated to the ,. TRACT•NOS. 6734, City of Anaheim: 6771 AND'6772 . (Conti wed) 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision,:each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. ~ 3. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6771 is ~ranted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 68-69-40. 4.. That Streets "A", "B", "C", and "D" shall be recorded as La Paz Way, La Paz Street, Prado Circle and Prado Street. 5. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 6. That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the northern portion of Lots 1 and 7, at the most feasible grade level. Landscaping and irrigation facilities shall be installed on all slopes in accordance with the Hillside Grading Ordinance. 7. That in accordance with City Cot~ncil policy, a S-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the east property line separating Lot Nos. 7-10, 17-19, 25 and 26 and Walnut Canyon Road, except that corner Lot Nos. 25 and 26 shall be stepped down to a height of thirty inches in the front yard setback. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed between said wall and the Anaheim Flood Channel and in the uncemented portion of the Walnut Canyon Road parkway, plans for said landscaping Co be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installa- tion and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. 8. The bridge to be constructed across the Walnut Canyon drainage channel shall be a minimum 40-foot roadway with a 5-foot sidewalk on each side. 9. A 10-foot sewer easement and a 25-foot temporary construction easement shall be provided along the northerly portion of Lot Nos. 1 through 7. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6772, seconded by Commissioner Camp, and MOTION CARRIED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 2. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6772 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 68-69-40. 3. I'hat Streets "A", "B", "C", and "D" shall be recorded as Hillcrest Street, La Paz Street, La Paz Circle and Constantine.-4?ead_ 4. That all lots within this tract shall be served by u;uerg:ound utilities. 5. That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the east property line separating Lot Nos. 10-12, 17-28 and Walnut Canyon Road. ay'9 aYi~"~+r', '9~ ~".tL .'"'Y~'p'fR.v~3~ r "r,~,p7 ,t4 ulav~'~P/S'Y3,E,~S.SS ~ ~t'';LSl~t uihT-.I.~ Tn~`~i '~`! '", 7 1 y ~,x Tlc~.~r t T~~ :+ ~ r~~' ~ir"' v' ..+,,,T{ I~v~i.~.. M'~; ~ a .. „~y'.. ~ . ,.,,. ,.. _, . . . . , ... . ..,.. .,. . .. r~ c - 1 . ... . ~ . . . . - ----' . . ' _. . ~ . O ~~.~~ .. ' . . . ~. . ~ ~ ~ . . - ~ , . 1 . ' - ~../ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 18, 1968 4210 VARIAN~£ N0. 2025 - PUBLIC HEqRING. PERALTA INVESTMENTS, 903 South Agate Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; JpMES HODGES, 903 South P.gate Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requestin9 WAIVERS OF (1) ACCESSORY BllILDING pBUTTING PROPERTY LINE WII'[~IIN FRONT.75~ OF Tt~ PROPERTY BETWEEN BUILDINGS, (3) LIVING UNITS MORE THpN 200 FEET FROM A STANDARDMSTREEI',D(4) MqXIMUM LOT COVERAGE, AND (5) ACCESS NOI' ADEQUATE FOR TRASH COLI.ECTION AND FIRE VEHICLES, TO ESTASLISH A 26-UNIT APpRTMENT COMPLEX on ~roperty described as: A rectangularly shaped parc~l of land having a frontage of approximately 127 feet on the west side ot Webster Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 296 feet, the southerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 890 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road, and further described as 821 South Webster Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ~ ZONE: Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the proposed use, and waivers to permit a 26-unit apartment development on the property which had a resolution of intent to R-3; that the plans indicated a two-story parking structure along the south property line and subterranean parking for a portion of the two-story, two-bedroom unit; tha£ the plan~ also indicated a 25-foot vehicular drive extending westerly- however the Assi.stant Fire~Chief indicated;at the Int'erdepartmental Committee for Public Safety and'General Welfare meeting'that'since a•54-fo'ot•turning•radius was not provided at'the terminus of the drive, the drive would be inadequate to provide proper fire protection to the rear units of the property; and that the density proposed was 30.4 dwelling units with coverage of 59~. Furthmore, if the petitioner redesigned the project, a number of , the waivers requested could be eliminated ~n o:der to meet the R-3 standards; therefore, the Commission might wish to consider a four week continuance in order to allow time for redesign of the project, eliminating a majority of the waivers requested. Mr. James Hodges, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the parking structure along the south property line would be only one story and would be at grade level, while the parking on the north side of th~e drive would be subterrar.~an; that since no precedent had been established to permit the proposed type of parking im- mediately adjacent to a property line, as well as subterranean parking, the Assistant Fire Chief might require a parapet wall; that waiver of the distance between main build- ings could be corrected - therefore he requested withdrawal of this waiver; that the Commission in the past had granted waiver of the distance of living units from a standard street, and, therefore, the request being made was in line with previous requests; that he was unaware the coverage percentage was greater than permitted - however, it appeared that since the trash area'was covered, this was considered a structure and was included in the calculations; that if the Assistant Fire Chief determined a 54-foot turning radius was absolutely necessary, this could be provided by reducing the recreation area and removing the swimming pool;.and that a similar development had been approved by the City Council southerly of subject property wherein the Assistant Fire Chief did not require this turning radius. Furthermore, the fire truck's could be backed out §ince the distance was not that great, and although other projects had provided a 54-foo•L• turning radius for trash trucks, the drivers always backed the trucks out of an area rather than turning around. The Commission then asked the Assistant City Attorney John Dawson to read the required showings which had to be proven when a variance was requested, for the benefit of the pc?titioner as well as the Commission. Mr. Dawson, upon completing the reading of these findinc~s, advised the Commission that these would have to be considered carefully before granting any variance by the Commission. Mr. Hodges ~oted that at one of the City Council meetings that Body stated it would be their policy in the future to consider favorably utilization of land in Anaheim for its highest and best use; therefore, consideration should be given to the fact that subter- ranean parking was proposed, thereby better utilizing the land even though a heavier coverage resulted, and that the designers had been attempting to bQtter utilize the land as a result of the City Council statement without sacrificing good design by proposing unsightly structures, with privacy being controlled with design rather than with the number of dwelling units on the property. Mr. R. R. Pralle, 2501 West Ball Road, appeared before the Commission in opposition and noted that he had developed a parcel of land similar in size to that of subject property and had been required to develop at a considerably less density because it was his under- standin9 that Webster Avenue would be limited in the density permitted per acre; that when an increase in the number of apartments per site was permitted, this would also in- crease the number of visitors to these various buildings, requiring additional on-street parking and considerably more traffic, which could be hazardous to the entire area - therefore he was objecting to the density proposed and requested consideration be given to requiring development in accordance with developrr,^nt of other parcels in the area which were required to develop at a considerably lesser density. ,.,.:.~~u '~..%4 A~,~'= . 1,.:'.- i.'. . _ . _ ~ ~ 4 ~_~ .;. '..~ ~ .~.'~ . . . ~.'.,, . _~' ~ , ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ MINUI'ES, CI7Y PLANNING,COMMISSION, November 18, 1968 4211 VARIANCE N0. 2025 - Mr. Hodges, in rebuttal, stated that the question of density as (Continued) ' presented by the opposition had been amended some time ago by the City CounciT when they approved more units for a,parcel than under which the opposition's property had been developed. Furthermore, this was the only opposition to the first subterranean parking development proposed, and ~ subterranean parking had proven to be a factor'in favorable consideration by the City Council_since it was their opinion that the street would be adequate ~o handle the in- ~ crease in cars because of two exits; furthermore, the dwelling units per net residential acre were well below the R-3 maximum, and by providino subterranean parking, extra ground was available and the increase in density should be allowed as proposed. T1~E HEARING WAS CLOSED. ;.~ i'he Commission noted that the one waiver requested relative to density had never been granted in the past, and that was the coverage; that the distance from a living unit to the garage waiver had b~en approved in'the past~; and ttiat 'if the Assistant.Fire Chief requested an adequate turning radius should be provided, this request for ivaiver of aceess for City service vehicles should be denied, and then inquired of the staff whether any problem would result if the waiver of the location of accessory buildings were permitted. 2oning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised that the staff in the past had recommended that accessory buildings be immediately abutting the property line in order to eliminate unused space whiah developed into weed patches; however, the petitioner was proposing a portion of the parking structure to be within the front 75% of the property which might present an unsightly appearance; that the reason for the waiver of the distance of living units from a standard street was in order to provide emergency service for the rear apartments; that the Assistant Fire Chief preferred a periphery drive if units were more than 200 feet from a standard street - however, if this could not be provided, then an adequate turning radius should be provided at the rear of an access drive in order that fire hoses would not have to be pulled all the way from Webster Avenue for a fire in the rear unit. The Commission further inquired as to the advantages in subterranean parking as proposed. Mr. Thompson noted that where subterranean parking was proposed, better use of the land might be accomplished for a portion of the area normally allocated for parking for each unit. The Commission then inquired what would happen if the variance were granted for the number of units per acre if the developex determined:subterranean parking were unfeasible - would this density still prevail if the plans were amended to provide surface parking? Mr. Dawson advised the Commission that approval of a variance was subject to plans sub- mitted and development would have to be in accordance with plans - therefore, if develop- ment of the plans as presented were considered unfeasible, revised plans would hav~ to be submitted, and if this were at variance with the density and coverage originally approved, then it would necessitate the refi~ing of a variance. ` Mr. Dawson further noted that the pending reclassification on the Webstez Avenue property i on which 18 dwelling units per net residential acre was density other than that approved under a variance would betaffected~byethisYregulation; therefore, waivers again would havn to be requested. Commissioner Herbst of.fered Resolution No. PC68-331 and moved for its seconded by Commissioner Cam passage and adoption, p, t~ nrant Petition for Variance No. 2025 in part, granting waiver of accessory building abutting the property line within the front 7~% of the property and living units more than 200 feet from a standard street, and denying the requested waiver for minimum distance br;tween buildings on the basis that the petitioner withdrew this waiver request, and maxim.am lot coverage and access not adequate for trash collection areas also denied, subject t~~ conditions, amending Condition No. 6 to indicate that revised plans shall be reviewed arr9 approved by the Development Services Department in accordance with the R-3 Zone site de~~elopment standards except as heretofore waived. Furthermore, denial of three of the waiv,ars was based on the fact that no hardshio had been proven that a variance was necessary to enjoy a substantial right not afforded others in the same vicinity and zone. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the fore9oing resolu~ion was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. I ABSEN7: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. !, ~+ , ,~~~'ir~ r ~_, la lc, .a7 ~x!±~ 5 ~^ : yFkL~? ~;;Y ~u '~ :t ~i7y ~ .,+ xk ~ ~ 5+,~u. a~ ~M.f ~ ~ ~ ~+a .. J} y„ t~ ~ ti ~ - $ ~ . ~~u t ~ ~ss~}i~ 1 ~. . w ~ ~ y + ~v.r- . . . .. . . . _..__ ~ .r..~_..- . ~ --' ---'- - - ~~ ' ~ ~. ~ .. . ' ' . .~ Q~ ~. ~ . .. . MINO?;5, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 18, 1968 4212 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF LOS ANGELES, Lessor; PERMIT N0. 1073 STANDARD OIL COMPANY, 605 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Lessee; ROBERT F. REID, Foster 8 Kleiser, 1550 West Washington Houlevard, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requesting ~x~"5;;~~~,vn to CONSTRUCT A BILLBOARD EXCEEDING MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISPLAY AREA on property ~.~a;ta'r'iusa9 as: A rectangnlarly shaped parce.l of land located at the southeast corner of i.RFr~,~~.r~ Avenue and Knott Street and having frontages of approximately 150 feet on Lincoln +~'r~;:~a~S ~~~ approximately 125 feet on Knott Street, and further described as 3448 West !~2"++.Wln Avenue.. Property presently classified G 2, GHNERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and the uses established in close proximity, noting that the petitioner was proposing to erect a new billboard 768 squaie feet i~i~size.on an ezisting billboard site, xhile the existing one was 300 square fee~;:; that the agent for the petitioner indicated the proposed size sign was necessary because of the loss of nonconforming billboards adJacent to freeway ri9hts-of-way, and the proposed new si9n face would project into the required 35-foot setback along Lincoln•Avenue; that the existing 300-square foot billboard was now located to the rear of the 35-foot setback; that the intent of the Billboard Ordinance was to provide alternative sites for freeway-oriented signs scheduled for removal by March of 1968, provided that standard poster panel billboards could be constructed at appropriate sites as a matter of right; and that the Billboard Ordinance further recognized that larger billboards might be considered in locations where they would not harm the appear- ance or investment potential of tfie surrounding area - however, these could be constructed only through approval of a conditional use permit for a truly unique situation. Mr. Robert Reid, representing the Foster 8 Kleiser Company, appeared before the Commission and noted that •~~ statements made in the Report to the Commission were accurate; that at the time the p[tition was filed, the encroachment into t~~e 35-foot setback was 10 feet, and through mEetings with the Standard Oil Company as to the ideal location for the pro- itswassnow proposed toahave a~6~-foot encroachmentWintotthee355$oot setback,~ end ifgthis were allowed, it was proposed to have a one-post structure, and this would be similar in size and construction to previous requests heard by the Plam;~ing Commission and approved by the City Council. Furthermore, '~illboards could never be coristructed higher than 36 feet and where adjacent to residential structures; however, the proposed sig» wauld be 32 feet; or approximately the height of the billboard presently in existen~e. Mr. Reid, in response to Commission questionir.g, s~oted that the size of the bil,lboard poles was the standard type painted outdoor advertisements that were rotated fsom ~location to location and were not the poster panel type used on standard outdoor advertising posters of 300 square feet; that the size of a regulation rectangle was 672 square feet, but because of the variety of copy displayed on a monthly basis, there could be projections from this standard *ectangle - therefore the 768 square feet was requested. Considerable di~scussion was then held ~y the Commission relative to numerous req~a~sts for large billboards in e.xcess of that permitted by right could not be justified by the removal of some from the freeways; that motorists driving along local thoroughfares rarely had time to view signs at the speeds they were traveling; that the proposed billboard would block out the Standard Oil sign as well as the adjoining market sign; and that approval of the proposed billboard could establish a undesirable precedent for requests from the service station site as well as the market for signs in excess of that permitted under Code. Commissioner Gauer noted that on a recent trip through Canada and the east, control of signs.and billboards was quite noticeable, and it seemed the State of California was the only one ef all the states in the United States where signs almost obliterated the trees and countryside, and that approval of the proposed billboard would add further problems to the urban sprawl of the City. _~ , , :r The Commission further noted that signs and billboards in Orange County, particularly in Anaheim, had an unfavorable article written about them in Fortune Magazine - particularly the signs along Harbor Boulevard, and the necessity for the size of the billboard proposed had not be proven other than the fact that it would represent their standard painted poster bulletin and was replacing signs whicl-, had been removed from the freeway frontage. Mr. Reid noted that since the cutdoor sign company was a legitimate business and they also operated in other states, they had cooperated 100% with the beautification program through- out the country, and this proposed billboard should be approved in accordance with the provisions of the Billboard Ordinance. Assistant City pttorney John Dawson advised the Commission that the requested billboard was in line with the Billboard Ordinance and a conditional use permit was required in order that the Commission and City Council could review the billboardsto determine whether they would be detrimental as to size and location. ~ ~~ ~ t~ - : , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 18, 1968 _ 4213 CONDITIONAL USE - No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. `FERMIT N0.'1073 (Continued) THE I-IEqRING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-332 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1073 on the besis that the proposed billboerd, more than 2~ times the size permitted by the Bill- board Ordinance, would be detrimental to the adjoining properties and could set an un- desirable precedent for simtlar requests froin the market and service station for larger signs because of the:approval of a billboard which obstructed the view of their existing signs. (See Resolutiom Book) Orc roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. NOESe . COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. EAST A~AHEIM METHODIST CHURCH, 1457 East Romneya . PERMIT N0. 1074 Drive, qnaheim, California, Owner; DAVID C. FLOCK, 1457 East Romneya Drive, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL CLASSES, INCLUDING CLASSES FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED, IN AN EXISTING CHURCH FACILITY on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of approximately 2.35 acres of land located north and west of the northwest corner of Romneya Drive and Acacia Street and having approximate frontages of 297 feet on the north side of Romneya Drive and 178 feet on the west side of Acacia Street, and further described as 1457 East Romneya Drive. Property presently classified R-A, qGRICULTURqL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown noted the location of subject property and the request to permit the continued utilization of the church facilities for a specialized school for the mentally retarded which had been in operation for some time; that in March, 1957, the Planning Commission 9ranted Variance No. 722 to permit a church facility on subject property; that prior to construction, the variance had expired - therefore Variance No. 943 was sub- sequently approved in Apri1, 1958 for the same use; that to date only two of the seven buiTdings approved for the construction under Variance No. 943 had been completed and were I now being used for church services and at varibus times meeting facilities for community , organiaations, such as Boy Sr.outs, Girl Scouts, a small nursery school, and a class for the mentally retarded; and that the petitioner had requested that the Conditinnal Use Permit No. 1074 be broad enough in its interpretation to permit other organiz;3tions to use the church facilities in the future.- However, staff discussions with the City•Attorney's i Office had indicated that a church, in many ways, was a community facility and normal usage would allow church connected social groups to hold meetings and use the facilities; however, to broaden the interpreta.tidn.:to the point where fraternal organizations, private educational institutions and other similar groups without approval of a#urther conditional use permit would appear to provide too much latitude as to the ultimate uses of the property, and that suLject petition, as advertised, would permit the nursery school and the school for the mentally retarded, and in this instance, the proposal would not appear to be detri- mental to surrounding properties due to the limited size of the facilities and the number of students involved - namely, a maximum of 12 students, with two instTUCtors. ~ Mr. David Flock, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, noting he was one of the trustees of the church, and :he statement made k+y the staff that to broaden the interpretation of the uses permitted under the conditional use permit for use of the church facilities, creating an open daor for non-related church facilities, would not take place since the church was a very conservative one, and the tru~tees would not permit most uses for the property, and the request for broadening of the uses was because of the number of organizations asking to use their facilities, such as conducting classes for deaf children, and that the purpose of subject petition was to permit continued classes for mentally retarded children. The Commission inquired of the agent whether or not his reasoning for asking for broadening of the uses was to permit subject church facilities for educational purposes, to which Mr. Flock replied in the affirmative. The Commission then inquired whether any criticism had been received from the neighbors regarding the classes for the mentally retarded which had been held in the past. Mr. Flock noted the school had been in operation for the past three years; however, when a request for renewal of the license was made, the Zohing staf~:lhad::incli~ca~ted.they would not approve the license because the use wa9 not approved under the original petition; and that they have had no opposition nor any problem with the uses of the churr.h +„ +ti... date. • . - -_ F ~ - y ~ . , . ~ . - . -. ~ •~"!~1.~3 "~ ~ ~'~ ~J; ~ ~ . ' ~ ~ ~~~ ' ~ " . . . ' ~ 1 7 . . . \J '.MINU?ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 18, 1968 4214 CONDITIONAL USE - No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. PERMIT N0. 1074 (Continued) THE HEARIPJG WAS CLOSED. Commissioner MungalL offered Resolution No.-PC68-333 and moved for its passage and adoption,,seconded by Commissioaier Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1074,'subject to providing a trash storage area. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst; Mungall,,Farano. ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERSo None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. : tr CONDII'IONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ALBERT COHEN, 631 Joan Way, Placentia, California, PERMIT N0. 1075 Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL ~;~ INSTITUFION FOR PRE-SCHOOL AND KINDERGARTEN on property described ;';,~ as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of appro:timately 111 feet on the west side of Easy Way and a maximum depth of approximately ;~.:,~ 109 feet, the southerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 175 feet north of ;;:h the centerline of Katella Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMHRCIAL, ,'.;?~. ZONE . ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and the uses established in close proximity, noting that a Tic-Toc Market was located to the south and single-family residential uses to the west and northwest, multiple-family development to the northeast and commercial to the east; that subject property was reclassified to the C-1 Zone in December, 1965, and the petitioner proposes to establish afrivate pre-school and kindergarten for a maximum of 54 children in a proposed structure approximately 2700 square feet in size, consisting of two classrooms and small offices for the staff and nurse, wi.th an outdoor play and recreation area of approximately 5000 square feet, which was proposed to the west and north of the structure; that the size of the lot was adequate for the proposed facilities - however, because a portion of subject property abutted the rear yard of a single-family residence to the west, the Commission might wish to consider recommending to the'petitioner that the pley area and structure locations be reversed, placing.the play area imme'diately ad,jacent to the commercial` property, thereby reducing the noise from children at play; and that it would appear the proposed use would r.ot be detrimental to the surrounding area.. Mr. Mario Pelligrini, representing the Pied Piper School System, indicated his presence to answer questions, noting that they proposed to construct the pre-school and kindergarten on subject property and that they would be willing to reverse the plan to place the play- ground area adjacent to the market. Mr. Dorothy Fogle, 1850 Tamara Lane, appeared before the Commission and noted that if subject petition we e r granted, a 6-foot masonry wall should be required adjacent to the west property line. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised Mrs. Fogle that one of the recommended conditions was the requirement of a 6-f t oo masonry wall along the west property line - a requirement of the C-1 Zone. Mrs. Fogle then noted that ever since the Tic-Toc Marke~ was in operation, they had con- siderable problems as't r o pape s and r3ebris blowing into the single-family residences and iinquired whether or not this 6-foot masonry wall would encempass the entire west side of the G1 property. ~ Mr: Thompson noted that since the wall was a requirement ad3acent to properties that we:e developed `the City could t , no require construction of a wall on vacant property unless the petitioner, himself, agreed to the construction f h o t e wall; however, because the petitioner had agreed to the relocation of the play area th i , e pr vacy of the single-family homeowners would be assured because of the required wall, and debris blowin fr the ma g om rket wot.:ld be minimized because of this wall. Mrs. Fogle then noted that even though a'portion of the property was not being developed, it was still owned by the same person, and the single-family homeowners should have the right to demand some privacy from i commerc al uses, although the property was not planned to be developed at the present time. The Commission then inquired of the agent for the petitioner whether it would be acceptable to him to construct the a r m son y wall along the north as'well as the west property line. ~ , ~ ` ~ ' ' _ ~ .m - . ~ "! ,~. . ~ .. , , . -' -- - -- . ., , . ,.,. . ;, ~ ~, . . ~ a. ~: MINUTES, CITY PLpNNING COMMISSION, November 18, 1968 4215 CONDITIONAL USE - The agent'£or.the,petitioner.then noted tha~:since they had agreed PERMIT N0. 1075 to relocate the`playground' area adjacent to the market, the proposed (Continued) masonry wall and the structure would assure,the adjoining property owners of their privacy: Mr. Thompsom inquired whether or not the pet~tioner proposed ~to develop the 50-foot strip of land in .•he near future. Mr. Albert Cohen, the petitioner; appeared before the Commissi~n and stated that no plans ;for,development.were considered'at this time; however, if the Commission were of the opinion that the:6-foot mesonry wa11 was desirebie, he wouId not be opposed to construc- tion of the wall around the periphery of the "not a part" paxcel. Mrs:;M3rguerite A.iderson, 1849 Tamara Lane, appeared before the Commission and reiterated the statements made by Mrs. Fogle relative to trash blowing into the yards, and although the play area and the structure would be between the market and her property, because ef the vacant land, there was always the possibility of debris biawing from this vacant parcel. Mrs. Duane Shepell, 1852 Tamara Lane, appeared before the Commission, noting i;hat she resided to the west of subject property on the long, narrow parcel for the past fifteen years; that she urged favorable consideration of a 6-foot masonry wall along the :vest property line in order to protect their privacy and insure less noise, Considerable discussion was then heid by the Commission relative to the location of the wall and whether or not it should extend from the existing wail aiong the north property 1?,ne since where these wa:ls did not ab~~t each other, this left an area where children might leave debris. The owner of the p.roperty immediately to the north of the C-1 property advised the Commis- sion that she would be wi2ling to give her approval for construction of the wall on her property line to the petitionp;. The Commission then advised tne petitioner to ccntact the northerly proper.ty owner relative to gaining access to the preperty for the puroose of constructing the wall required along the north property line ar.~:, to work with the property owner i~ det=rmining the type of wall construction and coloi. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner.,Camp offered Resoluticn No. PC68-334 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition fer Conditional. Use Permit No. 1075, subject to conditions, rec,uiring a 6-foot masonry wall along the west and north property lines of both subject and the "not a pa;t" parce'_ owned by the peti~io~er, the said north- erly,masonry wall to be censtructed in accordance with agreement made with the ad;oining property owner and provided tnat the struc~are and p?ay are~ were r.eversed, plaaing the , play area to the south of the proposed structu:~c ~s stipulated tc by the petitioner. '~ (See Resclution Bookj On roll call the foregoing reso:~uti.on was passed by the fo:.lowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONcRS: A1}red, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. NOES: COMMTSSIONERS: None. ABSENTo COMMTSSIONERS: Rowland. - RECLASSIFICAI'ION -.PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CI7Y PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East N0. 68-69-44 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim,`Cal~fornia; p•roposing thet property described : as: An zrregularly shaped parcel of approKimately 46.8 acresof 2and extending southerly from the Imperiai Freeway, enproximately 2,200 feet along Orchard Drive and having a maximum depth of approximately 1,640 feet westerly f.rom Orchard Drive, the southerly boundary o: said parcel being approximately 1,080 feet north of the centerl?ne of Oran9ethorpe Avenue, and further described a; the Orchard Drive Anrexetion, f~e reclass~fied frcm the COUN;f A)., AGRICULTURAL, A1(0), AGRICULTURAL (OiL), AND R'l,'ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS to the CiTY OF ANAHEIM R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown r.ev.ewed the :ocat:on of the property and the uses e;tabl:shed ~n r.lose proximity, noting that. a portion cf subject property included an elementary school in the Placentia Unitied Schoo.L District; that the area was generaliy flat, rising to the north and vehicular circu.lation was provided by Orchard Drive, a secondary arteiial; and ~hat the City of Anaheim R-A 2une was deemed most appropriate for the entire area due to the fect that at the pres~nt +,ime no oi.l we21 drilling or produc- - tion was in operation within the area, and the an~.y development within the reclassif:cation was tre school - there£ore, pending further development, this zone would be xecommended for apProval. ~ _.__.._. . . ' L.:._:: rF +a~ ~ec.-,rs.- m~r~+eru~ (-'aN ~~,..'~' _ ~ ~ :~~~y: _ - .i } ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLpNNING COMMISSION, November,l8, 1968 < : , . ~ „4216 '~ RECLASSIFICATION No one a eared in o ~ ~ ~ pp PPosition to sub~ect petition. ~ - N0. 68-69-44 ~ ! :: , _ z (Continued) THE:HEpRING WAS CLOSED ~ - ~ ~ ~. ' ' -,;, ' "ti , Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No PC68 3s;; z.;id moved for ~~ its passage.and adoption, seconded-by.:Commiss,ioner~'Farano,,to recommend to the.City. , + Council.-that Petition for Reclassifi,cation No'. 68-69-44 be,:approVed unconditionally. ~ ; (See;Resolution Book) ;,' ` ': ~~ ,: ;' `. ~ ' , On roll call the foregoing resolution•ivas passed by the.following,:vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS Al1re~; Camp,,Faiano; Gauer, Herlist, Mun9a11., NOES: .,,COMMI$SIONERS:. None: ~ ABSENi COMMISSIONERS: 'Rowland. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. GIENN AND ROSE BERCOT, ET AL, 2327 East South Street, , NO 68-69-42 Anaheim, California, MARCELINA ARROUES, 110.~Pine.Avenue,iSuite 514, Long Beach,'California,•and HOWARD M. LANG, 10921 Wilshire Boulevard, TENTATIVE MAP OF. Los Angeles, California','Owners; DANIBL J. DEUTSCFIE, JR.,;7.3901 Kerry TRACT N0. 5482, Street,;.Gaiden Grove, California, Agent; property descri~2d'as: REVISION N0. 2 ThTee parcei,s of,land having a total of:approximatelq 15.8 acres and having combined frontages of approximately'1,446 feFit.on the south TENTATIVE MpP pF side of Crowther Avenue and approximately 1,385 feF;t on the north. TRACT N0. 5528 side of Orangethorpe Avenue, the westerly boundary~"of said la nd being approximately 130 feet east of the centerline of Oxford Street. - Proper.ty presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESI'ED`CLASSIFICATION: R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, 20NE. TENI'ATIVE TRACT REQUEST:, DEVELOPER: PRESTI.EY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 4500 Campus Drive, Suite 140, Newport Beach, California. ENGINEER: Lander Engineering, 1782 West Lincoln Avenue,,A~aheim, California; proposing subdivision into two tracts'of 43 R-2-5000 zoned ; lots. ; : ; ~, Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pet Brown reviewed'the location of subject property, noting that~thi"s encompassed ttie>easterly portion of a triangle known as-the Dowling property' ~ located easterly of;Kraemer Boulevard;'that the R-2=5000 trect was'already being`developed I to the west of subject pioperty; and.that the.General Plan indicated medium density resi- r ~ dential uses for the properties within-the Dowling triangle - therefore the ro osed ' ~~ ~ subdivision would appear to be a p p f' , ppropriate to the area and would be a logical extension `' of the uses approved to.the west'of'subject property. '" i: Mr.'Daniel Deutsche, agent, appeared before the Commission and noted that the three owners were desirous of having the proposed zoning to finish out the triangle from the Flood Control channel to Kraemer Boulevard, and then inquired whether or not these tracts would ' be subject to the new ark p and recreation fee. Zoning Supervisor Ronald I'hompson advised the agent for the petitioners that at the time the resolution was drafted by the City Council, it steted that anything in process' through -0ctober 22, 1968 and fees paid prior to May 1, 1969, would not be subject to the increase in park and recreation''fees; however, subject petition was.filed on October 2. - therefore, ,° under.the strict interpretation'of the resolution, they could not qualify, but the City " Council was holding'a public meeting regarding these fees with developers in the evening ;>, of November 19, and, therefore,,recommended that the agent for the petitioners be present to express his viewpoint. No one appeared in opposition to sub'ect r'' ~ petitions. „-. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED~ ~'' Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC68=336 and moved for its passage and adoption, E:: seconded by Commissioner,Farano,,to recommend;to the City Council that Petition for "' Reclassification No, 68-69-42 be,approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allrpd,;Camp, Farano, Gauer, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ABSENI's COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. . : .:Me_m ~ .. . ::~,~w„ ,.~, w..., ~~...--- --- . . ; ; ~ ` °w~',~.~T'.:~.T+ ~k:F'~~.~'`~~'Yf,~!'~1^{?r`~,S4~n~ ~~"' A ) .~ . ~ ..A' R' a 1 i -.+u '){~ 1 .+ .-~" ''~ ~ .~ r.~ ~u ~yxf3.S,ya 1~t ,' j rc ~ ~ ~ [ ~F ..~~ t ~ i ~ ~Y :',~ ~. . ... , . . . . . ,~ ~- ' . .. . .~~~ . V/ .. , . .:. ' . "~1y.7{F ~~~' _ . , . , . . - ~ . . i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION;,November 18, 1968 ~ . ti3~~f ~ti. rs ~ 4217 RECLASSIFIC~TION - CommissioneT.Herbst, in voting "no", stated it was still his conten- NO 68 69=42` tion:this property immediately adjac t "~ en to the Northeast Industrial Area was not appropriate for residential use. TENTATIVE MAP OF ;~ s'~ TRACT;NO. 5482, Commissioner Farano offered a motion to a AProve Tentative Map of REVISION N0.'2 Tract No '5482 Revi ~, ~~ ~ . ,, sion No. 2 • • ,_seconded by Commissioner Gauer, • and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst voted "no" TENTATIVE,•MpP OF " the following conditions: ). subject to TRACT ; N0 ~ =~ ~ . . 5528 - (Continued) 7.. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one ` (: ?~ subdivision,' each subdivision:thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. ~~ 2. That the approval of Tentative'Map.of Tract No. 5482,.Revision No. 2, is granted _subject to the approval of Re l if ~ c ass ication No. 68-69-42. 3. That Streets "A" and "B" shall be recorded as Bedford Circle and Bates Circle. 4. That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the north property line separating Lot Nos. 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, `17.and 20 through 26 and Crowther Avenue, and south Lot N 8 os. 2 through 43 and Orangethorpe Avenue. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facili- ties, shall be installed in the u ce e n m nted portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of.said wall, plans for sai'd land ca i ' ;f' p s ng to be sub- mntted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acce t e ~ p anc , the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of seid landscaping. ':<'; 5: That the vehicular access ri9hts, except at street and~or alley openings to Crowther and Orangethorpe Ave ue h ~ n s, s all be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 6. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. ? 7. Drainage shall be discharged in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. ,Commissioner Camp offered,a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5528, seconded •"by Commissioner Mungall, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissio He " ?, t ner rbst voted-"no ), sub~ect to the.following conditionss ,j4~ 1. That should this subdivi'sion be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall b ~~ e submitted in tentative form for epproval. ~, 2. Thet the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5528 is qranted subject to the approval of Reclassifi ati . - c on No 58 69-42 ` 3. ihat Streets "C" and "D" shall be recorded as rhames Circle and Stratford Circle.` 4. Tha;; in accordance with City Council polic:y, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructeo on the north property line se a atin L p r g ot Nos. 6, 7, g, g, 23~ 24, 25; and 26 and Crowther Avenue and south Lot Nos. 34 through 43 and Orangethorpe Avenue R . easonable landscaping, ~.ncluding irrigation facilities, shall be installed in-the ` ~ ~ uncemented portion of;the arteriaT highway parkway the full distance of said wall p 9 ~ Plans for said landsca in to be sub and itt m ed to sub3ect to;the a pproval of the Superinter~dent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and " ;';+ acceptance, thef iity'of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said larid ca i +,,i s p ng. 5. That the vehicular access rights to Crowther end Orangethorpe Avenues, shall be'dedicated to the Cit of A h i i~ y na e m. '., '6.' That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. y ~ 7. Drainage`shall be discharged in a menner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. ' ~': :<• i .__,_ ~ ~ ~ ---~ ~ - MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 18, 1968 4218 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM P..,DOWNEY, 1949 Ninth Street,.Anaheim, N0: 68-69-41 California; Owner; KIT KENYON; 9502 Greenwich Street, Anaheim,~ ,Cali;fornia,.Agent; property:described as: An "L" shaped parcel VARIpNCE N0. 2028 of appioximately 3.7 acres of land having a-frontage of approxi- mately 165 feet'on the'west.side of Ninth Street and a maximum TEp:TATIVE:MAP OF depth"of:approximately 484 feet,, the southerly boundary of said TRACT N0. 6792 parcel,being approximately-860 feet north of the centerline of' ~ Orangewood Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE . REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1,_ONE-FAMILY ftESIDENTIAL, ZCNE. REQUESTED VARIANCE:. WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM LOT AREA AND (2) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, TO ESTABLISH 16 ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONED LOTS. 1'ENTATIVE TRACI' REQUESI': DEVELOPER: KIT KENYON, 9502 Greenwich Street, Anaheim, California. ENGINEERc Anacal Engineering Company, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing sub- • division of subject property into 16 R-1 zoned lots. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, noting the waivers xequested for lot area and lot width; that the owner planned to retain the one-acre parcel to the south; that the size of lots ranged from 6000 to 8000 square feet; and that the General Plan indicated low density residential development for the area - therefore the request would seem to be appropriate. ~ Mr. Kit Kenyon, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and indicated his availability to answer questions, noting that he intended to develop homes in this tract ranging in price from $32,000 to $38,000, and that he had indicated in the applica- tion that he wished to vary the widths of the lots with the homes since in aesign it was not his desire to pre-size lots, such as a 48-foot wide, two-story home placed on a 70- foot wide lot; that many people were not interested in the upkeep of a large green area; and then inquired whether or not he would be affected by the new increase in park and recreation fees.~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald.Thompson advised the agent for the petitioner that his petition was;;also filed one day late of the date stated in;the resolution by the Council; and then urged;him to attend the'public meeting regarding these £ees. A telegram of opposition was read to the Planning Commiesion from the property owner to the east'of s+~bject property, opposing the lot size of less than 7200 square feet. TNE HEARING WAS CLOSED. . Commissf.oner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC68-337 and moved for its passage and adoptiun, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 68-69-41 be approved, sub~ect to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follawing votes AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-338 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded'by Commissioner Farano, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2028, sub3ect to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ' On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENTo COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6792, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, and INOTION CARRIHD, subject to the following conditions: 1. That should this subdiviaion be develooed as more than one subdivision, each sutidivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 2. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6792 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 68-69-41 and Uariance No. 2028. ~ --- --- - ~. . . ~ _ - `::;{~.: , " -.-..'t~~, ~ ~'%Ta;~ . ~~,. . . . . -. ~"\ ~ . . . . . , . . . ~.l MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 18,.1968 4219 RECLASSIFICATION , N0.'~68-69=41 3. :That in accordance`with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall.shall be constructed on the east property line separating ~ VARIANCE N0. 20'18 Lot No.: 1 and Ninth<Street,`except that corner Lot No. l shall be stepped down to a hei ht of thirt i s 9 y nche in the front yard ' TENTATIVE:MAP OF setback, and;ezcept that pedestrian openings shall be provided in~satd walls where'cul-de- ~as ebut th TRACT N0. 6792 (Continued) . s e planned highways right- of-way,line.of an erterial highway. Reasonable landscaping, i u ncl ding.irrigation facilities, sha1T be installed in the un- cemented portion of:the.arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall,,plans for said landscaping to be submi.tted to and subject to.the approVal of the Superintendent of Parkway Mainten- ance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall'assume the responsibility for maintenance of said la~~dscaping. 4. .That all lots within this tract shall be served with underground utilities. 5~ That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings to Ninth Street, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 6. That drainage shall be discharqed in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. 7. It is normal City policy to require dedication of ultimate street right-of-way and construction of street improvements for "not a part" parcels resultin9 from tract development; however, because of existing trees and improvements on the "not a part" parcel remaining from Tract No. 6792, ultimate dedication and improvement is impractical at this time. Therefore, it is recommended that the following conditions be placed on this "not a part" parcel: a. That the owners of sub~ect property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of~land 30 feet in width from the centerline of the street along Ninth Street, for street widening purposes. b. That the oweer~ o£ subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim ~ a.strip of land 45 feet in width from the centerline of Ninth Street, for :~~ s,treet widening purposes. This easement deed is to be written so that it ~^e shall become effective upon the death of the grantor or upon the sale or ~`~~ rezone of the "not a part" parcel, which erer occurs fixst. ~`,~~'' c. That street pavement be installed westerly 22 feet from the centerline ~ ; of Ninth Street in accordance with sta~dard plans and specifications on jr file in the office of the City Engineer; and that the estimated cost of y; the pavement be included in the improvement bond for Tract No. 6792. d. Reference paragraph 7b above, that street improvement plans shall be prepared and all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Ninth Street, such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be completed as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file with the office of the City Engineer; and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shell be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of said engineering requirements. , e. f. That the existing asphalt sidewalks on Ninth Street be relocated adjacent to the new street right-of-way, and that the estimates of the asphalt sidewalk be included in the improvement bond for Tract No. 6792. Ihat items a and b, above mentioned, be complied with prior to final approval of Tract No. 6792, and that conditions c and d, above mentioned, be completed in con~unction with the-improvements of Tract No.•6792.' ~:a ;~ ~ ;;, ; ''~'; ~; _.-_ ~:~:~u.~_:.~.,,.. ,:,.._. ~~ ~ ,~ ~'_ ~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 18, 1968 q22p , RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. LLOYD J. rRAPP, ET AL, 5219 Shady Glen Lane, Anaheim, N0. 68-69-43 • California, Owners; JACK SPENCER DAVIS, 6700 Stanton Avenue, Buena Perk, California, Agent; property.described as: An irregularly shaped VARIANCE N0. 2029 parcel of approxi mately 12 acres of land located north and west of Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Street and having approximate frontages of 850 feet on Rio Vista Street and 560 feet on Lincoln Avenue. : Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCfi: WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE, (2) qCCESSORY BUIL~ING ABUTTING SIDE PROPERTY LINE WITHIN FRONT 75% OF PROPERTY, (3) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, AND (4) LIVING UNITS LOCATED MORE THAN 200 FEET FROM A STANDARD STREET. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub~ect property, the uses established in close proximity, and previous zoning action on the property, noting that the present request proposed multiple-family residential development fc~r the entire 12-acre parcel, whereas formerly a portion of the property was proposed for commercial uses. The waivers requested were then reviewed, Mr. Brown emphasizing the fact that the extension of the stub street from the R-1 parcel to the west through subject property would divide the parcel into two portions, with 154 units proposed on the northerly port3on and 132 units an the southerly portion - this, then, would mean lot coverage after revised engineering figures were presented of 5'7~ on the southe:ly portion, although the density for the total project would be 29.8 dwellin9 units per net residential acre, with the 27.1 dwell.ing units for the northerly portion and 33.7 dwellin9 units for the southerly portion per net acre. However, the Planning Commission and City Council recently considered medium density residential land use appropriate for this general area under General Plan Amendment No. 97; it would appear the intent of this approval was to have the property developed transition- ing from one-family residential adjacent to the existing R-1 to low-medium and then the remainder to medium density. Therefore, the Commission would have to deLermine whether the proposed development would conform to the land use policies expressed under General Plan Amendment No. 97. Mr. A. R. McDaniel, agent for the petitioner and the proposed developer, appeared before the Commission and noted thet plans'submitted were besically what was proposed; that the units would be rented to adults only and no provisions were made for children; that the southerly;portion had been submitted with incorrect figures, and because of the recalcula- ti'on,'the coverage was now 5'7%; that the transition from low to medium density as stated in the Report to the Commission was not proposed because the overall project would be lower in density than permitted by the R-3 Code; that the property had been approved previously for a planned residential development and commerr.ial uses - however, the proposed development would be for residential use for the entire parcel; that no two-sta~-y construction was proposed within 150 feet of the R-1 - therefore, he urged that the Commission consider subject reclassification favorably. Mr. L1oyd Trapp, representing the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and noted that subject property was part of an estate held in ~oint ownership by six persons, and because of the death~.of their parents, numerous debts had occurred - therefore, it was necessary to dispose of the property; tha~ tne proposed development o.f the property would be something that as former owners they would feel proud of as being a.n asset to the area; and that he would be available to answer quesi:~ons. The Commission noted that on a previous petition heard at this hearing, the Commission had denied waiver of the lot coverage - therefore the Commissian could not grant the proposed request without giving preferential consideration to the petitioner. The petitioner then requested that Assistant City Attorney John Dawson again review for the petitioner end the developer the necessary showings the Commission must consider in granting variances. Upon completion of the review of the showings of the variance request, the Commission then asked the engineer wheLner the developer could meet the maximum lot coverage permitted since no hardship had been proven that the development of the parcel was hampered by unusual size and shape:of the parcel. Mr. McDaniel noted that the proposed lot coverage on the southerly portion was arrived at after a number of conferences with the staff; that in the design of the proje^.t every attempt had been made to comply with the Code requirements, and the proposed waiver was only 2~; over that permitted; and that the proposed development was the best use of the property in making a most presentable overall development, Furthermo*e, that in the ~ pa;t, the Commission had allowed carports to be constructed ad,jacent to property lines :, ~ , ...,., ~ '° ~. ( -~ ~ l..J '~; ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING.COMMISSION, November 18, 1968 4221 , ~ RECLASSIFICA?ION - as well as waiver of these caiports.to encroach within the front N0: 68 69=43 75% of the propert a d th ` y, n at,it was:proposed to have landscaping ~ •- north of the freeway omramp. Also, the distance of-units f ~ ~` rom a VARIANCE N0. 2029 dedicated street was also discussed, and it was determined that (Conti"nued) with t e h number of alleys and location,of the carports, this Naiver would be technical. { Mr.;McDaniel in response to further Commission questioning, stated that the units would have~front doors facing on the i teri a '~: . n or, nd the carports along one tier, where outside units might be affected;.were a portion of the:enclosed patios. Furthermore, only 10% of .the units would be more than 200.feet from T ;i' a dedicated street and would have access no'more than 125 feet to- each unit since alleys were proposed around the Aeripher as w ll ' ~~ "x y ' e as a dedicated street in,the center of the development. ..~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. THE HEqRING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Camp expressed the opinion that the requirement of development in accordance with the site development standard f th s o e R-3 Zone was detrimental in the development of R-3 projects; that he had discussed this with many architects who had indicated it was difficult to design within reason around a11 these requirements and still have a project acceptable to the developer and th Cit h e y - t erefore, these waivers were generally requested and that if the developer of the proposed project could live within the maxi mum coverage of 55~, then the proposed project should be approved. k's Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not the proposed development would guarantee the protection of the R-1 around th e periphery of the project to the west and north. Commissioner Herbst inquired whether or not the property had been zoned for R-3 at the time the R-1 tract had been approved. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the property had a resolu- tion of intent for R-3 for a portion of the property, which proposed a planned residential development, and G1 for the balance; however, this petition requested R-3 for the entire development: Commi:ssioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC68-339 and moved for its pas~age and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano; to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 68-69-43 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. NOES: COMMIBSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC68-340 and moved for its passaqe and adoption, seconded by:Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2029, in part, deny- ing waiver of the maximum lot coverage (Section 18.32.050(3)), subject to conditions, and tfie basis for denying the waiver of the maximum lot coverage was that no hardship had been proven because of the size and shape of the property, and the proposed development could be developed in accordance with Code as it pertained to maximum lot coverage. ~ (See Resolution Book) I, ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was pessed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. ` NOES: COMMISSIONERSe 'None. ABSE:~T: COhiMISSIONERS: Rowland. ~~.~ ... . ;.a~ . . .' ~.-- ... .. ~ - .~w..r,.:.::_.__~~~.~ .. .....,~.. ~- - -- . .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . .. - ~ . ... . . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 18, 1968 q222 REPORTS:AND - ITEM N0. L RECOMMENDATIONS SPECIAL USE PERMIT N0. 89 -,Request for approval of plans for expansion of an existing church`facility - St. Boniface . Parish - Property located noith and west of the northwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue - Presently zoned C-2 and P-1. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and the uses established in close proximity, noting.that the original parish hall had been demolished and removed from the site, and the plans submitted by the petitioner indicated the new parish hall is proposed to be constructed on the northeast portion of the property fronting on Harbor Boulevard; that Harbor Boulevard had been fully dedicated to-its ulti- mate width of 45 feet; that the new structure's front setback was proposed at 5 feet from the right-of-way line, whereas the F-1~Zone would require a 20-foot front setback from arterial streets, and the new commercial facilities now being constructed along Harbor Boulevard were required to have a 10-foot structural setback in accordance with the site development standards of the Anaheim commercial zones for ultimate aiterial right-of-way. Consequently, it would appear to be inequitable to require any church structure to be set back the 20 feet required in the P-1 Zone; however, the minimum normal 10-foot set- back requirement should be complied with as it pertained to the proposed structure. Mr. Earl Nellison appeared•before the Commission to represent St. Boniface Parish, noting that the pastor of the church was out of town; that the request fox a structural setback of 5 feet from the right-of-way line was necessary because any relocation of the structure would require it to use a pori:ion of the parish grade school playground; that it had been the original intent to keep the old structure and reface it, but he had encouraged that the old structure be removed and a new structure developed; that the existing school had been resurfaced to match the church, and the proposed parish hall was necessary to provide a meeting place for teenage youngsters - therefore he requested favorable consideration of the proposed 5-foot setback from the right-of-way line since it was their desire to have a planter box instead of a 10-foot landscaped area which would be a catch-all for debris. • The Commission, upon reviewing the plans, noted that the additional setback of 5 feet would have very little effect upon encroaching into the schooL area since, by redesign, this 5 fee.t;could be applied to the'northerly portion of the~ structure. The Commission further inquired the number of parishioners who were members of the church and how many,students were now in the classes. Mr. Nellison noted that the St. BonifGce Parish had a membership of 2700 families, and the school'had 640 students, with a potential for 700 students if subject building were utilized for an assembly hall, and that they were attempting to provide a similar type of facility as the YMCA, but they did not wish to remove some of the grade school front yard and play area. The Commission further noted that approval of the proposed plans with a 5-foot building setback might establish an undesirable precedent for the Harbor Boulevard redevelopment, and regardless of whether this would be for a church school or a commercial development, to consider any future street widening would be difficult if less than 10 feet were permitted, and with Harbor Boulevard bein9 a main arterial through the City, in all like- lihood it would be necessary in the future to require further dedication for street widening purposes. Mr. Nellison noted that many of the lots along Harbor Boulevard would be unable to estab- lish a 10=foot setback because of their exieting lot depths. Zoning Superyisor Ronald Thompson noted ttiat the 10-foot setback was a requirement in the',zone, and #ew of the buildings that were in existence on Harbor Boulevard were less than the,l0 feet, and those south of the police station, upon reconversion, were required to have a minimum of a 10-foot setback. Mr. Ulysses Bauer, architect of the proposed new parish hall, appeared.before the Commission and noted that dedication to the ultimate width for Harbor Boulevard of 45 feet had already been mede; that the service station existing at the northeast corner of Harbor Houlevard and Lincoln Avenue was on a ten-year lease; that design of the proposed parish hall could give the 10-foot setback, but ,the church membership was unwilling to encroach into the front yard area of the school - however, the suggestion made that the storage room should be relocated to the northerly part of the building might be taken into consideration. Furthermore, although they were not stating that the proposed requirement of the 10-foot setback could not be accomplished, they would prefer having the 5-foot setback and the planter proposed for the landscaped portion of the 5-foot setback was 3 to 4 feet high. ~ ~ ~.-*--" ~ , ea ~ ~'~; ~ _ w.+~ ~ ";.r ~~'.., ~' ~ MINUTES,:,CITY:PLANNING COMMISSION, November 18,''.1968 4223 : REPORl'S ' AND ~~:RECOMMENDATIONS -,2TEM:NO. 1 (Continued) The Commission inguired whether:or not:the proposed structure would be set back in a similar;rmanner'as St: Catherine's',Military Academy to the north of Cypress Street. ~ Mr. Bauer steted that trie overhang of the'St. Catherine's school would be approximately at~the aetback of the proposed structure;:however, the main building itself was set back ':i at:'12.,feet. , , Gommissioner Gauer.offered.a motion to.approve plans #or the ezpansion of the existing church•"facilities.for a new parish ha1L.f~or_the'St: Boniface Parish complex originally approved:under Special Use;Pe••rmit No. 89, provided, however, that the structure shall be set;back 10 feet';from the right-of-way line in order that an undesirable precedent would,not be set for other develooments along Harbor Boulevard asking for a similar setback waiver which would be comn>ercial in nature. Commissioner Herbst seconded ±he motion. MOTION CARRIED. TEMPORARY ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Camp offered a motion to adjourn the meeting for dinner, to reconvene at 7:30 P.M. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEL~. Tne meeting adjourned at 4:22 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Allred reconvened the meeting at 7:30 P.M., all Commissioners except Commissioner Rowland being present. GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East AMENDMENT N0. 110 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to consider an amendment to the General Plan, changing the density from low to medium density north- AItEA:DHVELOPMENT erly of Ball Road and easterly of Sunkist Street. The area develop- PLAN N0. 45 ment plan proposes the extension of Hi1da.Street westerly to Sunkist Street. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ALBERT S. TOUSSAU, 6672 Richfield Road, ~~ N0 68'=69-29 Anaheim, California, Owner;;A.`R.'MC DANIEL, 500-C North Anaheim ~4 - Bouleverd, Aneheim, Cal3fornia, A9ent; property described as: An ':'~ CONDITIONAL USE irregularly shaped parcel of approximately 6:45 acres of Iand having `~ PERMIT'N0. 1069 <a frontage of.approximately 505 feet`on the east side of Sunkist ~ Street:a»d a maximum d~pth of approximately 633 feet, the southerly !'/ boundary of said parcel being approximately 205 feet north of the ~. centerline of Ba11 Road. Property presently classified COUNTY A1, i. AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT. { REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ AND ' G 1, GENERpL COMMERCIAL, ZONES. 'REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: 1'O ESTABLISH A 166-L'NIT MULTIPLE-FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT~ WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, (2) MAXIMUM DIS?ANCE OF LIVING UNTfS FROM A STANDARD S7REET, , (3) MINIMUM DISTANCE BE1'WEEN BUILDINGS, AND (4) LOCATION OF ~.;, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. i : Associate Plenner Marvin Krieger reviewed General Plan Amendment No. 110 (copy on file in the Development 5ervices Department), noting the existing zoning and uses anct the fact that.the General Plan pro~ects this area for low-density residential development; however, ~`<` because of a request for multiple-family residential:zoning,, the:General Plan amendment was presented with three alternatives which the Commission would have to considers ~ -1) reiterate'the exi§ting General.Plan designation of low-density residential development; ~'~ 2) adopt Exhibit ".A" depicting commercial for the frontage on Ba11 Road, transitioning i;': 'from medium density;to low-medium'density and to low-density residential abutting the ~; single-family homes to the north; and 3) adopt Exhibit "B" which depic~s commercial designation along Ball Road and medium-density residential for the bal~~ce of the study ,.. area. , ` ~ 'j Mr. Krieger then noted that'the im act of ~ p possible density changes indicated: 1) Utilities - none. 2) Perks - none. 3)_ Traffic`- Hi1da Street should be continued westerly to Sunkist Street as proposed under Area Development P1an No. 45 revised. ~ 4) Population increase: low-density - 144 ? Exhibit ~~A~~ - 169 ~, ~: ' Exhibit ~~B~~ - 394 ; : ~• , .h. .3~~ T .t~` .1 I F ,~.aff.S' ~ 1 W .h ~ ,' k`~ ~ MINUTES, CIlY'PLANNING COMMISSION, November 18, 1968 GENERAL PLAN - 5) School age population: AIufENDNI~NT N0. 110 • Low density AREA DEVELOPMENT Exhibit "A° PLAN'N0. 45 ' Exhibit "B" `RECLASSIFICATION V 4224 K=,6 7_9 10-12 27 12 11 22 9 9 20 9 9 N0. 68-69-29 Mr. Krieger, in conclusion, stated that in light of the reviewed CONDITIONAL USE objectives and principles of the General Plan, the Commission may `PERMIT N0. 1069 wish to consider which exhibit reflected their interpretation and (Continued) recommend the same to the City Council as General Plan Amendment No. 110. " Mr. Krieger then reviewed Area Development Plan No. 45, revised, which proposed the exten- sion of the stub end of Hi1da Street westerly to Sunkist Street, noting that it would provide a very desirable third outlet for the 176 R-1 homes existing to the east and north of the stub end street, regardless of the land use proposed or approved for the vacant 10-acre parcelwhich the proposed extension would bisect. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Browa reviewed the location of subject property and the uses established in close proximity, noting that the petitions were continued from the meeting of November 4 in order to allow the staff time to advertise the General Plan amendment and the area development plan, and to include the Sall Road frontage property also owned by the petitioner (this Ball Road property was omitted in error from the readvertised legal description and will be considered as a separate petition by the Planning Commission on Deeember 16, 1966). ~ Mr. Brown reviewed what the petitioner proposed:and the w2ivers requested, noting that lot coverage would be approximately 51~, which was within the coverage permitted under the R-3 Zone but was 11~ over that permitted under the planned residential development resolution; that the waiver of the one-story height limitation was from properties to the south and west which were under the jurisdiction of the County, and in all likelihood would be developed for other than low-density residential use; that the waiver of the m9.nS.mum distance between buildings applied to the carport and main structure separation, and al- though it did not meet ~od~a, it did provide more open space and recreation.area in the oenter living area of the pro~ect; and that the accessory buildings were proposed to be located within the front 75~ of the side property lines - however, it would appear that the carports would provide a more effective screening between the R-1 and R-3 than a 6-foot masonry wall, as'well as placing the carports closer'to the individual dwelling units. Therefore, the primary;issue before the Planning Commission was that of land use and whether the proposed development with a density of 26 dwelling units per net residential acre would pmvide an acceptable lahd use transition where it was contiguous to the existing single-family homes. Mr. A. R. McDaniel, representing the petitioner and the proposed developer of the property, Mr. Yoder, appeared before the Commission and noted they were in agreement with the Report to the Commission as to conditions, and that he was available to answer questions. Further- more, he requested permission to rebut any opposition presented. Chairman Allred inquired as to the number of persons present in opposition to subject petition, and a showing of hands indicated approximately 75 persons present in the Council Chamber, all in opposition. Mr. John McCloucl, 2547 Strong Place, appeared before the Commission i~ opposition and noted that although the opposition was not organized, this was a"grass roots" mw ement wherein all single-family homeowners were vitally concerned as to the proposed utilization of the vacant'property at the northeast corner of Sunkist Street and Ball Road. He then described the area surrounding subject property, noting that many of the homes in the area were in great demand for resale, and the new homes immediately to the north of subject property were now being sold, costing between $35,000 and $40,000, and the proposed apartment devel- opment would not enhance the livin9 environment of these new homes. Mr. McCloud then noted that approximately three years ago when the Planning Commission had conaidered the'property at the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and Ball Road, they-indicated at that time they were not in favor of additional apartment development in the area, and, therefore, the.opposition present at the public hearing tonight was to oppose any additional epartment development in the area which would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood; that the plans indicated a crowded type of development, with no standard street and with accessory buildings entirely too close to the residential homes; that the density proposed was considerably more than presently existed, and this would mean a considerable increase in traffic; that although Sunkist Street was considered an arterial street, traffic many times during the day was backed up fifteen to sixteen cars 3n order to gain access either to the east or west on Ball Road; there was an existing school to the northwest of subject property,' and approval of an increase in density would mean an increase in traffic and create considerable hazards for the children going to and R~ , ~ ~' \ - ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSYON, November 18, 1968 q225 GENE3~pL PLAN - from scho~l - however, his main objection was to the fact that the AMENDMENT N0. 110 proposed development was not in conformance with the General Plan, AREp DEVELOPNI~NT and since the opposition were also taxpayers who would be losing PLAN N0. 45 through depreciation of the value of their property, he urged the RECLASSIFICATIOId Commission to seriously consider the single-family homeawners' will N0. 68-69-29 as to.the proposed development. CONDITIONAL' USE PERMIT N0. 1069 Chairman Allred inquired as to the number of persons present in (Continued) favor, and a ehowing of hands indicated five persons, who represented the petitioner, the agent, or the developer. Mr. Stuart Noble, 2526 Whidby Lane, appeared before the Commission in opposition and noted that his property was immediately to the north of subject property, and although he realized subject property would not be vacant indefinitely, the proposed use was incompati- ble with the existin9 uses already established; ~hat one of his neighbors had moved from Ohio, and prior to purchas~ng his home in the new subdivision to the north of subject property, had visited the Plannin9 and Zoning Division of the City Hall to determine what was proposed to the south and southwest of subject property and had been informed that low-density residential was indicated on the General Plan, but in his particular instance, he had relocated from an area near R-3 development to a quieter area in order to get away from the noises R-3 developments projected; that the homes in the tract in which he resided were valued at from ~33,000 to $37,000, and the builder af ~these homes had sold approxi- mately two-thirds of the homes prior to the completion of the homes - therefore he could be considered a success in building a good and expensive home in a good neighborhood; that subject property would still be appropriate for single-family residential use which would project approximately between 26 and 30 homes for this area and would not be in variance with the General Plan; that all the persons present were in opposition to multiple- family developme~it, but none had seen the plans proposed except for those who had visited the City Hall and requested that the plans be posted on the wall so that all interested persons could review the plans. Furthermore, he had submitted several petitions of opposi- tion with well over 100 names, as well as a number of letters which individuals had sub- mitted, indicating their personal opposition. The Commission then inquired of Mr. Noble whether or not it was his opinion he was opposed to other than low-density residential use for the property; whereupon Mr. Noble replied that since he was speaking for himself only in response to the question, it was his feeling that the property adjacent to Ba11 Road should not be denied commercial zoning. The Commission then inquired whether or not Mr. Noble felt low-density residential uses adjacent to commercial uses and the freeway off-ramp might not be undesirable, to which Mr. Noble replied that many of the homes on Hilda Street were.already adjacent to the proposed off-ramp, and, therefore, this could not be the criteria for approving subject petition. I Commissioner Farano then noted that the Commission was a±~empting to obtain the opinion of the residents adjacent to the off-ramp. Mr. Noble noted that he was a real estate loan broker and he knew certain savings and loan companies would never loan money to expected purchasers of homes where they were adjacent to apartments end~or freeway off-ramps; although a number of homes in this area were backing up to the off-ramp, and although this might not be desirable, the owners of the property were well aware of what Nas proposed adjacent to their property. Mr. Noble then,in response to further question3ng relative to his experience as a real estate loan broker, noted that the integrity of the area and the value of the homes in the axea would be better maintained if R-1 backed up to R-1 and then transitio~ed to R-2-5000 adjecent to the commercial use - however, since was his own opinion and not the feelings of the others, and since the General Plan indicated low-density residential uses with persons in the area purchasing their homes on the basis that this area would be retained for low-density uses, it was his considered opinion that the entire area should remain R-1. Mr. Harold Heiman, 2627 Whidby Lane, appeared before the Commission in bpposition and noted,tha~ he was the former President of the Anaheim-Rio Vista Homeowners Association and hed formerly lived west of Sunkist Street - however, he now lived approximately fifteen yards from the freeway right-of-way and when he moved into this area, he was fully aware the freeway would be constructed there, but he felt the area was an outstand- ing residential area in the City of Anaheim, and the homes and yards were beautifully maintained; that the City Council had approved the Fredricks Development apartments on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, east of Sunkist Street, maintaining that single-family residential use was not appropriate adjacent to the freeway - however, there were well over 100 homes abutting the freeway right-of-way between South Street and the on and ~ , ~ -- - ---- ~~ ` ~ ; . ~ `~~ -' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONy November 18, 1968 4226 . GENERAL PLAN - off-ramp area on Ball Road, and the reasoning that single-family AMENDMENT N0. 110 residential use was not appropriate adjacent to a freeway could `AREA DEVELOPMENT be discounted, and the entire area should remain for low-density PLAN N0. 45 single-family residential use from the existing R-1 tract northerly RECLASSIFICATION of subject property to Ball Road. Furthermore, he was opposed to any N0: 68=69-29 more service stations and commercial development since the east Anaheim CONDITIONAL USE area was overly saturated with commercial uses and service stations PERMIT'N0. 1069 were not an asset to a residential area. (Continued) The Commission advised the opposition that the service station site at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Sunkist S~reet had been approved by the County of. Orange prior to any consideration of annexation to the City of Anaheim - therefore the Commission had no jurisdiction as to previous commercial uses. Mr. Heiman noted that none of the property owners had been advised by the County that a service station was proposed for the northeast corner of Ball Road and Sunkist Street. Furthermore, since single-family residential use had been established in the.area, using the freeway as a criteria for granting heavier density should not be considered. Mr. Summerville, 2617 Gelid Court, appeared before the Commission in opposition and noted that the legal notices were being mailed as third class mail and that if he had not seen someone posting the property, he would have discarded the legal notice - therefore, he recommended that all legal notices be sent first class mail. Mr. Henry Labord, 2546 Strong Place, appeared before the Commission in opposition and noted that he had moveci to Anaheim approximately two years ago and selected the area in which he was residing because of the beautifulsurroundings and the residential integrity of the area; that he had four children and was also concerned about the best area for rearing child•ren and the school facilities; that the Commission could note by the number of persons present their deep concern relative to the proposed development; that he was opposed to the method of posting the legal notices on the property, noting that he had observed someone nailing the no~ice in the dark, and then inquired of his wife whether ~ or not something had been receivp~ in the mail relative to any proposal for the area other than low-density resident3;:i use. The Commission inquired of the'staff the practice of posting the properties under considera- tion for public hearing. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that he found it difficult to believe that the representative of the Zoning Division, Mr. West, would post the property a great distance away from the street; that as a rule, large parcels such as subject property were posted with at least three notices - therefore one would be on Ball Road and possibly two on Sunkist Street; and as to posting in the dark, this seemed a possi'nility, and with the dayti.ne hours limited, it was possible this could have been posted after 4:30 in the afternoon since the posting was begun approximately at 1:30, and if a considerable distance of the City had to be covered by Mr. West, the timing might be nearer to sunset or whe.~ an area was almost in darkness. Mr, Jim Steltzler, 130 South Laramie Street, appeared before the Commission, noting that although he ar*ived somewhat late and @id not hear all the presentation, he was extremely concerned relative to any increase in the number of school children into the existing elementary schools; that there were two elementary schools and a junior high school and a senior high school, and projections of a heavier density than originally established when the schools were built might create an overload on the school classrooms; that South Junior High School had to move into bungalows to take care of the additional students not anticipated by the school district - therefore consideration should be given by the Commission as to adding to an already overcrowded situation in the schools. Chairman Allred advised the opposition that according to statistics compiled by both the Development Service5 Department and the school board, properties zoned R-1 and developed with single-family homes usually had more children per acre than apartment developments. Mr. Richard Barr, 2623'Whidby Lane, appeared before the Commission and noted that no mention had been made relative to extending Hi1da Street abutting subject property westerly; -.that since most of the people in this area now had access to Sunkist Street from Paladin and Maverick Avenues and had been utilizing this access for the past six years, there was no logicaT reason for opening up Hilda Street and extending it to Sunkist Street since this would encourage commercial and apartment uses of a local residential area; that he had originally resided on Pacific Avenue when he first moved to Anaheim and had relocated because of the approval of apartments in the area and subsequent construction of these apartments; that after considerable searching of the records, he had found the homes on these cul-de-sac streets east of Hilda Street would be abutting the proposed Orange ~- - -s. ~ - ::~ - ; y ~ V MINUTES, CII'Y,PLANNING COMMISSION, November'18 1968 22 , q ~ GENERAL PLAN 'AMENDMENT%N0 110 - Freeway '- however, he was not as concerned with the traffic noises as h s" . e wa opposed to approval of apartmepts; and then inquired why. AREA DEVELOPMENT apartment developments:w t f s PLAN N0. 45 ere no ir t constructed in areas, thereby . permitting the homeowners who were not desirous of livin in th ' RECLASSIFICATION N0 68=69-29 g e area where apartments were.constructed, to locate in another area . CONDITIONAL USE instead of the present method of permitting apartment development aft r n PERMIT N0..1069 ` e a area had been almost completely developed for single-family residential us (Continued). e.: Mr. Don Magrun, 1161 South Hi1da Street, in response to Commission questioning why no one was in opposition to the service station when it was approved by the Orange County Planning Commission i dic the residents in , n ated that none of this area were within the 300 feet of the station therefore no o aware of it, and all wo b , ne was that if the property owners in this area had been advised, he was sure uld e at a service..station. public hearing to oppose a proposal for commercial uses, especially a City Engineering Representative Jay Titus advised the opposition that from a traffic engineer's viewpoint, the existing streets,were adequate to carry the existing traffic; however, another consideration in resolving circulation of an area was to have easy access to an area £or emerqency vehicles, such as police, fire, and ambulance service, and this was the prime consideration at the time it was determined Hilda Straet should be extended to Sunkist Street. ~ Mr. Magrun then noted that since there already was a fire station at Ball Road, westerly of Sunkist Street, access to the residential development easterly of subject property could be made almost as quickly from Paladin or Maveric;; Avenues i The Commission then noted that as long as automobiles were a part of everyday life of Southern California, the need for adequete circulation would be an ever present problem. Mr: R. J. Shrader, 3744 Hermosa Place, Fullerton, appeared before the Commission and noted that it was not their desire to deteriorate the area with low quality apartments; that they planned to maintain the one-story height limitation within 150 feet of the R-1 and to enclose;the entire deyelopment both to the nortn, ~ast and south, since they were also desirous of maintainin9 the residential integrity of the apartments in the area; that both the carports and the;one-story apartments would have tiled roofs`and the entire motif of the development would be Spanish decor with considerable landscaping; that it was pro- po'sed to have only 51% coverage, whereas many single-family homes covered considerably more; that in the design it was planned not to have windows adjacent to where homes were located in order to assure privacy of the single-family homes; and that the propose~ development would have private patios, and it was proposed to have alleys of a minimum of 30 feet which would be around.the periphery of the proposed development and would provide adequate fire protection; and that they were not desirous of having low density residential development and the proposed apartment traffic intermixed by the extensiorn of Hilda Street even though they were accepting drainage from this street across subject property at the time the property was developed. Mr. Shrader further noted that the property fronting on Ball Road proposed for commercial uses would be retained by the petitioner end the apartments would also act as a buffer between the commercial and the residential uses. Mr. Heiman then inquired what the rental was proposed for these apartments, to which Mr. Shrader replied the one-bedroom agartments would be renting for $135 a month and the two-bedroom apartments at $170 per month. - Mr. Heimarr then noted that the rentals proposed could not compare with the rental of the types of homes in this erea if they were`being sented; furthermore, the turnover of apartments was considerable, and the owners would be less reluctant to move since moving from one home to another entailed considerable expense. A discussion was then held between Mr. Heiman and Mr. Shrader relative to taxes as they pertained to the various acreages and single-family homes; whereupon Chairman Allred advised the opposition that the Commission could not consider any difference in taxes as they perteined to the proposed request since it was the duty of the Commission to deteanine whether or not the use proposed was e good land use, and, therefore, recommended that any comments made should be limited to whether or not the proposed development was a good land use for subject property. Mr. Noble then inquired of Mr. Shrader whether or not it was their intent to retain the proposed apartment'development and whether or not a similar layout was developed within the City.or close by which the opposition could view to determine what effect it would have and whether or not this was adjoining single-family residential use. ~ ~~~ ;, 0 : ~ - : ~ . . - .~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 18, 1968 422g GENERAL PLAN - Mr. 5hrader then replied that they had or.e in the City of Fullerton. AMENDMENT N0. 110 AREA DEVELOPMENT TEiE HEARING WAS CLOSED. PLAN N0: 45 RECLASSIFICATION The Commission then inquired what form of access would the portion N0. 68=69-29 along Ba11 Road have since'it would be adjacent to the off-ramp. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0: 1069 . Mr. Titus advised the Commission that the property along Ball Road (Continued) would have a 75-foot frontage westerly of the off-ramp. Considerable discussion was then held relative to the proposed General Plan amendment, and upon its conclusion; Commissioner Herbst offered Resolutiop No. PC68-341 and moved £or its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that:General P1an Amendment No. 110 be approved, depicting commercial along the Ball Road frontage,'low-medium density to the extension of Hilda Street, and low-density northerly of Hi1da Street, said exhibit to be prepared by the staff and marked Extiibit "C", basing the approval of this on the fact that the northeast corner of the intersection of Ball Road and Sunkist Street had already been approved for a service~station site; that the frontage along Ball Road westerly of the off-ramp would allow a 75-foot accessway - there- fore the maximum that could be developed on Ball Road would be a small commercial use; that si~gle-family residential uses immediate,ly adjecent to the off-ramp would not be ' compatible; that the Commission recommends consideration be given to R-2-5000 backing up to the commercial uses under the low-medium designation, thereby separating the commercial and the low-density residential use with a fully dedicated street and also eliminate multiple-family development for the portion of the property proposed between the commercial frontage and the extension of Hilda Street. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolut~on No. PC68-342 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to recommend to the City Council that Area Development P1an No. 45, revised, Exhibit "A", be approved, proposing the extension of Hi1da Street westerly from its present terminus to Sunkist Street as being a desirable additional vehicular outlet from the existing single-family area to the north and east, regardless of the land use proposed for the vacant 10-acre parcel. (See Resolution Book) ~ ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. ! NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-343 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 68-69-29, requesting R-3 zoning,:be disapproved on the'ba'sis'that ' the lend use would be incompatible with the recently approved General Plan amendment and area development plan and in order to maintain the residential integrity of the adjacent single-family residential development. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERSs None. AHSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowla nd. NOTE: Although the Commission originally approved C-l zoning for the Ball Road frontage of property that was to have been legally adverti'sed, since the legal advertisement was incorrect and did not include the Ba11 Road frontage, the recommendation of the Commission could not be forwarded to the City Council in the opini'on of the City Attorney. Further more, although the Commission was desirous' of recommending approval of R-2-5000 and R-1 for the_portion of subject property legally advertised, because tfie metes'and bounds of `the property as indicated on the General Plan amendment were not specific,`this recom- mendation could not be made to the Council. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-344 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1069 on the basis tha~ the proposed lend use of a multiple-family planned residential development would be incompatible with the General Plan recently proposed for amendment and the land uses,in the area. (See Resolution Book) ~ ,~v~, ~; ~'~P~w ~f a. f ~ t , ~ : ' "`~` ~,.~ ~ ~ .: ~ y x ~^ ti~ W~ ' ~ 't~. ~ F ~ ~~ .:~' ... MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 18, 1968 . „ : ;~ : 4229. , . GENERAL PLAN .' - On roll`call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following AMENDMENT N0. 110. vote: • . ° ; . . , . AREA;,DEVELOPMENI' _ , . , , PLAN N0.~45 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst; RECLASSIFICATION Mungall._ ' ' ' N0. 69=64-29 ' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: .None. ~ CONDITIONAL USE _ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. PERMIT N0: 1069 : ' . . : ';' , _ , _,(Continued)' _' r , ..:: REPORTS AND - ITEM N0, 2 , _ RECOMMBNDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0: 1050 - Frank Horny - Property`located o n the northwest corner of North Street and Lido`Lane,:;approximately. 280 feet east of Loara Street I. , consisting of approximately:6 acres, is zoned for R-3 - is proposed to be'developed under Revision;No 3 int 2 ~:' . o 25 one and two-bedroom unit r in one and three-stoiy structures. ~ Assistant 2oning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the report made to the City Council by the Development Services Department-Z ni ~ o ng Divisibn regarding the revised plans.for Conditzonal Use Permit No. 1050, said plans having reduced the number of units from 333, as reviewed by the Planning Commission when subject etitio , ~ . ~ p n was denied, to the present 225 units; that waiver of the one-story height limitation with'in 150 feet of R-0` o e ° ` ~~ pr p rty to the north across the flood control channel was still necessary, as well as the three-story construc- tion which was proposed to be at h i ,, q ~ a e ght of 30 feet; that waiver ef the minimum buildiny~ site'area per dwelling unit was necessary also, although the density had beem reduced from 61 units per net acre to 41 2 unit r ~ . s pe net acre; that the carports were proposed adjacent to the property line; however, since no other structure would be affected acted th e f ,~~ , es as a 6- carports oot masonry wall if that had been a requirement; and that the Commission had previously granted waivers f th Y o e maximum distance of living units from a standard'`etreet,- thus consideration of this waiver would be in line, since the petitioner was proposing 30-foot peripheral drives which th ' t e Fire Chie; determined wuuld be needed to provide fire . protection if fully dedicated streets were not required Fu ~ . rthermore,.the;City Council had referred the revised plans back to the Planning Com i i n in ` m ss o order that the Commission: could evaluate them to determi pp p e deve k q ne the a ro riateness of th lopment;with the waive re uested as c d w r , " ' ~ p p om are rs j : I. ; „ ith the develo ment`which`the Commission had.denied previous~l ' ~~ y '• The Commission inquired as to the location of the R-,O property whic6 would be within 150 feet of .the three-story structu 'w , `~ res; hereupon Zoning Supervisor"Ronald Thompson advised f the Commission that the R-0 property was vacant pro ert l ~+~ p y ocated northerly of the flood control channel and a portion of subject property had a at on m e d ~~ ~ e ti e. It was also noted that some considerationphad been givEnuto converting itte to,a park site, and another porti f th o ~~. ,~r~ on o e pr perty had been considered for a fire station in the past. I~~ i :ii Mr. Harry Knisely, representing the petitioner, edvised the Commission that with redesign of the project the same number of' ~ ~„~ } units could be developed on the property complying with the R-3 Code requirements, except for a few minor waivers which had been granted in the ` past on other R-3 develo ments i t J'' ' p n he City. ~ (+ The Commission further noted that although the revised plans indicated one-story within 150 feet of the R-0 property to th ~,4,, e south, nothing in the Code indicated what type of` encroachment could be permitted if three-story were constructed outside o£ the aforemen- tioned limitation._ `' x .~ ~ ~ ~ r Assistant City Attorney John Dawson advised the Commission that the only limitation,in Title 18 was two-story, althou h 9 i t ~1 t ;';tl limitation was also indicated, thus the Commissionswouldfhave t 3d te 3 h r o e rmine whether th ee- story beyond the 150-foot,limitation'was appropriate for thi e ~~ r~, ~ ~ s ar a. Four persons,who were also ' present at,the City Council public hearing, appeared to express their opinions regarding the revised plans and th w i ''J'~ 1`' e a vers requested, noting that a con- siderable ihcrease in the number:of vehicles would create a'traffic hazard for children attencling school on the t ~ h`i `~~ sou h side of North Street, as well'as bhildren using the YMCA` facilities;,that'the-density was in excess of that o n w developed with multiple-family structures to the east; and that the possibility that even though parking was in excess ' of that required b Code thi ( i y , s could lead to on-street parking from the ~roposed develo p- I ment because of the inab i l i t y o f t h e x esi den ts t here b i e ng able to gain eccess to North Street which was too narrow to handle'on-street parking, thereby creatinq problems for residents on Lido Lane.. ,.', ,; - i ~: ~ -', .. ~ ~ ~ . ~~ ~ ~ .. ~ .~. . ~ , . ~ , ~ .. . ~ ~ . . ~ . ~ . ~ . +ti,l ~~ .. ~ . , , . . ~ , . . ~ . . . ~ *~. ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ t ~ {j r .. :+'R"_ ... ~ ~ ..~ . . :~.~ ,,,p~° .'.: . . . ,-"~ , -'-.~..~ .._ .._ ,.:~ ._ . .. .... . . . . ..:. ... ..... . h ~7 ~. i W, ,''~ ~;a.+~:"~"''I~F ~ ,~ ~;~; ~ , ..__ _ . ; ~ y' ; ~J ~ i: • .. `.' . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .r ' MINUIES; CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 18, 1968 ." _ 5230 ~ ~ REPORTS'AND. ~, .RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 2 (Continued) ~~ 'Commissioner Heibst offered:a motion to recommend to'the City Council denial of the ;~ revised plens presented .to the Commission for consideration under Conditionel Use Permi ~~ t No. 1050. This motion failed for want of e seco.:~. j~ Considerable discussion was~~then held by the Commission as to the appropriateness of y}~ the three-story development with the density proposed, inherent traffic problems, uses "~ developed .in the.aiea as a result of the R-3 zoning on subject property, and whether ` or not a reduction in zoning should be considered; however, if this change in zoning ~, were initiated.by the City, it could establish an undesirable precedent for similar ~ `"down zoning" in the future; and that the petitioner should not be penalized for retain- r~~ ing investment property purchased with R-3 zoning by denying him permission to develop the property within the requirements of the zone established on the property. ~ r: Mr.,Frank Horny, the petitioner, then appeared before the Commission and reviewed a ' similar project in the City of Covina, located on a four-acre parcel, said city having the same height restrictions as the City of Anaheim, although these were waived. He further indicated the proposed development was planned after considerable research studies were made which indicated that there was a definite need for this type of oevel- , < opment in Anaheim. At.the conclusion of the discussion by the Commission, they then inquired whether or not the petitioner would be agreeable to develop the property with 200 units and still "'"'~r, ' retain the architectural amenities proposed under the plans. This, then, would eliminate the waiver of minimum building site area per dwelling unit and, consequently, the number of units`per net acre. N ;: Mr.'Knisely then advised the Commission that the petitioner would agree to development ~" of the property with 200 units and plans would be amended only to reflect the reduction of'the 25 units from the entire development and still retain the proposed architectural ~ amenities. I Commissioner Farano offered a motion to recommend to the City Council if Conditional I sUse.Permit No: 1050 were considered favorably by them, plans marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, ~"i, Revision No: 3, be approved subject to denial of waiver of Section 18.32.050(2) - Minimum :.building site`area per dwelling unit - on the basis that the minimum building site, by d stipulation'of the petitioner, would be developed with 200 units, thereby bringing this ,,; requiiement within the intent of the R-3 Zone requirements, and subject to the conditions set fozth in the report by the Development Services Department-Zoning Division to the '~ City'Council; however, amending Condition No. 13 by adding the following: :% "provided, however, that only 200 units shall be =:% developed on subject property, as stipulated to by the petitioner". Commissioner Camp seconded the motion, and on roll call the foregoing resolution passed unanimously by the Commissioners present. (Commissioner Rowland was absent) ADJOURNMENT ` - There being no further business to discuss, Comi:~issioner Camp offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, _ ~~ ANN KREBS, Secre ary Anaheim City Planning Commission