The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1968/12/02F ~"r ,A .y~ ~ ~~ ~ ` r ~ ~ ~ . ~i ~ ~ XY ~ ~.'. .. ~t ~ .. ~5. ~ . .. . .. ~ ~, }~ ~ . . . ~ . . . . ~ . . . ~ . . ~ . ' " . ' . . ' - ~ ~ . ' .R'" ~l ~FS-. Ci ty Ha 11 i~~. ,.w , Anaheim; California a° 5'~1 ,~ December 2, 1968 ~'t;r ~~ A REGULAR MEEI' ~ asw ING OF THE ANAHEIM•CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~'~t ~ REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting:of the Anaheim`City Planning Commission was called ,, i• i ~: to'order b Chairman Allred at 2:GO o c1ock P.M. a ` , Y - ~ , quorum being ,, '' present. ~.~ , , PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Allred. - COMMISSIONERS:, 'Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. ;;~ ~:.r ABSENT : - COMMISSIONERS: None. `~` PRESENT - Assistant City Attorney: John Dawson !' City Engineer Representative: Jay Titus rri; Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson ~ ~ . Associate Planner: Marvin Krieger - 3 Assistant 2oning Supervisor: Pat Brown Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs '~ INVOCATION - Reverend Harlan Roelofs, Pastor of the Anaheim Christian Reformed ""<ix: "' Church, gave the invocation. PLEDGE ~~ OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Farano led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ~ APPROVAL OF' - The: Minutes of the meeting of November 18, 1968 were held over for THE MINUTES a ~~ pproval to the meeting of December 16, 1968. . •~ _ ~~s~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUSLIC HEARING. .1331 EUCLID ANAHEIM COMPANY, 465 La Brea Avenue, PERMIT W0.'1077 •Los Angeles, California; 0wner; JOSEPH DOYLE 1741 W a e ~, a'~, ~ , est K t lla 'Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH ' ~, '" _ A BHAUZ Y SALON AND BOUTIQUE WITH;PARKING RESTRICTED TO ON-SITE PARKING FOR EMPLOYEES on property described s "~i a q A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at;the,southwest°corner:.of EucYid Street'and Chalet Avenue; having frontages of'approxi- te %~} ~' ~ ma ly 137.feet on the south side of Chalet Avenue and approximately_100 feet on the west.side of Euclid Street, and further described as 1331=1333 South Eu lid . , . ~` ~' c Street. Property presently classified G1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE (DEED RESTRICTED). i' Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the existing zoning a nd the rea n h h At`' ~ , so w y t e conditional use permit was initiated - due to the`fact that the City Council u;~on recommendation by the City Attorney deemed it `: ~' necessary that off-street.parking could only be accomplished through a conditional use permit rather than through an amendment t th I o e deed restrictions; and that the use pro- posed would still be the same as approved by the Planning Commission under Reclassifi- ~ cation No. 68-69-30, October 7, 1968 and by the City Council on November 11, 1968. ~ ~ Mr. Harry Knisely; attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted there-were no changes to the plans originall ap v d b h y pro e y t e Commission, or the method of operation - however, the Council wanted to be assured that the residential street c ~ 3 ~ weaterly of subject property would not be subjected to all day parking by the employees, and the conditional use permit was ire ~ ~„, , requ d in order that this situation would not arise. i ' Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thomoson advised the Commission that by requiring employees to park;on the ~ite, and if this were not accom li h d o ~ '~ , p s e , the C mmission couid then revoke the'conditional use permit. ' ~': :~:; The Commission inquired as to the,method of enforcing this on-site parking; whereupon Assistant City Attorney John Daw ed i m ` ~~ , , son v sed the Co mission that a show cause order would be,served if inspection and complaints;weie received-that all day parking was being made he on t residential street by-said employees, No one appeared in opposition.to subject petition. ~ THE HEARING"WAS CLOSED. ' i: ~ 4231 f - - - ~_ ~ ~~~ o a MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 2, 1968 ~ 4232 CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC68-34°; and moved for its PERMIT N0: 1077 passage and adoption, seconded by Commiseioner H~arbst, to grant (Continued) Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1077, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COPAMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbsi,"Mungall, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioners Camp and Farano indicated their only reason for voting approval was on the basis that the City Council determined this was a necessary procedure, and dis- approval would hamper the petitioner's pr~~p~sc!d operation. VARIANCE N0. 2032 - PUBLIC HEARING. GIACOMO LUGARO AND AGOSTII~A LUGARO, 420 North Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; STANDARD OIL COMPANY, WESTERN OPERATIONS, INC., P. 0. Box 719, Orange, California, Lessee; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM NUMBER GF FREE-STANDING SIGNS AND (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS, TO PERMIT TWO 30 X 40-INCH PRICE SIGNS on property described as: A x•ectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Magnolia Avenue and Crescent Avenue, having approximate frontages of 150 feet on Magnolia Avenue and 147 feet on Crescent Avenue, and further described as 590 North Magnolia Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the ~ existing zoning, being a service station site, and the variances to permit more siqns and distance between the two additional price signs to be located on a light standard; that there was one existing free-standing sign at the northeast corner of subject property; and that the proposed price si9ns would be within 64 feet of the canopy and 122 feet from the small free-standing sign easterly. Furthermore, it would appear that the Standard Oil Company by combining the signs and locating them at the northwest c,rner, which was the normal location for mosi service station signs, could eliminate all or most of the violations of the Code - therefore, the Commission might wish to discuss this - possibility w.'th the petitioners since approval of this request could set a precedent for,similar requests at service station sites throughout the City, especially those for the Standard Oil Company. Mr. John McGinnis, representing the Standard Oil Company, lessee~agent for~the proposed signs, appeared before the Commission and noted thet because i:he Standard 0i1 Company service stations constructed in Anaheim up to 1964 had unique problems, since canopies I were permitted to have the Standard 0i1 Company symbol and price si9ns were permitted on temporary "sandwich" signs, the problem of competing with other service stations ~•ho were permitted to have their combination of lights, price signs and oil company insignia at the intersection, had resulted in a decrease in business, especially uuring the numer- ous price wars which occurred every few months; that after 1964, the City of Anaheim had adopted a sign:.ordinance governing the number of signs on a service station and distance between free-standing signs which had now created a problem as far as their service stations were concerned - therefore, as a result of limitations of the sign ordinance, the'Standard Oil Company service stations were placed =n an economic and uncompetitive situation due to the fact that prices could not be quoted for oncoming motorists to note the price of gasoline during a price war. Furthermore, if a price sign were erected over the canopy as indicated in the picture presented to the Commission, this would create a safety hazard to the operator and still would be inadequate for visinility of prices; that they had attempted to resolve the problem with the staff, but since this was not done, the requested variance was necessary in order that his company might be in a more compe- titive situation than at present; and that if subject petition were not approved, this would mean a loss of potential customers who were desirous of taking advantage of the price wars as they occurred. The Commission noted that, in their opinion, it wa s not the fact that Standard Oil was not permitted price signs that was ceusing a loss of business, but the fact that the City of Anaheim had an excessive number of service stations, and that one of the major oil companies recently had indicated fifteen of their leased stations would be sold and several others would be demolished. Mr. McGinnis noted that the value of the price sign had been proven over and over again since the motoring public was interested in getting the commodity for the cheapest price possible, and by not being properly advertised, the small operators would be put to a disadvantage because.they could not compete with the service stations haviny their price signs attached to their oil company insignia signs. ~~ ~~+a~r ~F ~,~1 :~ ~ H .i,;'+ ~" ~,'~' .: ~ru '°~ f:F ,~e,~V.`'.~'~.j~: ~ ~'/` ~T,'+.n'``a ~ a ~~.. ~~~+` f*~y ~x2 1 ~~ r ~~ r ..;. x ~ J,;: ''_ ~ a ~ ~ n~ . . . ~: . - ~ ~ ~ - .~ ~ ~.~ . ~ . ~ :~F MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 2, 1968 4233 ;y VARIANCE N0. 2032 - The Commission further noted that if subject petition were approved, (Continued) although the petitioner had indicated that the competition had similar signs, the City of Anaheim would be faced with requests from all other service stations throughout the City to have additional i.: free-standing signs which would have price signs more readily visible. ,__ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Coinmission that the Standard Oil Company had approximately fourteen stations developed prior to the adoption of the sign ordinance - which were'constructed with "fin° signs over the canopy, while the balance of their service stations were now developed with the price sign attached to the oil company insignia pole. The Commission further noted that if the petitioner were permitted to place price signs as proposed, without granting the same privilege to other service stations, this would be giving Standard Oil Company an unfair adiantage. Furthermore, design of a service station which offered certain advantages over other service stations and which presently might create a hardship in the eyes of the service station operator as to adequate sign- ing of price signs should not be the determining factor in granting a privilege to the petitioner when other service stations were required to comply with Code; therefore, the petitioner had not proven a hardship existed, which was a prerequisite to the Commission's considering approval of a variance. Mr. Elmer Holliday, District Manager for the Standard Oil Company, appeared before the Commission and noted they had proof by actual sales figures that over 10% of the sales were lost because of inadequate signing of prices during a gas war. The Commission then inquired whether actual figures were available from the Standard Oil sales data which indicated the majority o: the motorists purchased their gasoline based on the price rather than their desire to have a certain type of gasoline and certain service stations. ~ Mr~. Holliday noted that they had contacted customers and others regarding their reasons for purchasing gasoline, and 66~ of the customers noted that price notwithstanding, would always have their cars serviced by the Standard Oil Company - however, the other 33% always considered price and the possible change of station operators. The Commission inquired how the proposed signs would ettract more people; whereupon Mr. Holliday stated that when the price of gasoline was advertised, this conferred to the prospective customers you.were in competition with other service station operators, and if no sign were exhibited, this would mean you were not in competition but maintained a higher price. Commissioner Camp left ihe Council Chamber at 2:34 P.M. Considerable discussion was then held betweer. ~;~e Commission and Mr. Holliday relative to the reasons for the price sign, evidence to loss of business, whether or not the Standard Oil Company was competing with other service stations, and price signs were not necessary unless gas price wars were on; that the ordinance did not prohibit the price signs - however, the location of said signs would be controlled. Mr. Thompson noted that if the Commission considered subject petition favorabTy, the staff would recommend a policy or an amendment to the sign ordinance to permit this rather than processing individual petitions, o_ if the Commission were desirous of continuance of the petition until the staff had made a survey of the 200 service stations in the City as to price sign locations, then a continuance of four weeks would be in order; however, Standard Oil Company had fourteen service stations with "fin" type signs and it would be rather expensive to hzve these relocated to the corner. The Commission further noted that subject property was signed with two separate signs, and ~ price .sign could be placed on th> ex_'s±i::; f-=~-~±,~.?? ~~ __~;; ~± the northeast corner of the property, but this would give exposure to one street rather than two streets. Commissioner Camp returned to the Council Chamber at 2:40 P.M. Mr: Thompson further noted that the staff would like the cooperation of Mr. McGinnis ' relative to urging the operators to clean up and maintain the landscaping on the property ~ since subject property itself, as far as landscaping was concerned, was rather dismal. ! i She representative of the Atlantic Engineering Company advised the Commission that land- ~ scaping for the existing service station would be improved. Mr. McGinnis advised the Commission he would do everything he could to encourage all service station operators to clean up and maintain the landscaping so that it would be an - asset rather than their present appearance. -,,-.,~-~..~ _,.._. . _ . , . _-._._._ _.. .. ,_, ,._~_,~ "~4.~ ... .~ _ .__.._____T__.~_..._ . _ .. . . _..~,. _ .., - '..~~~ . . a~'~~/"+~'a'~'' ~"~"` -~'<.3.,,~~.4'~. a ~ ~ '.~' /t~ ~ °r"if' "'n -; ~fk r ' 3r a v, > ~~ mr+.c ~ s 'Ye .. - F . .~ L.. ~' t ~ x 4+.r`41'' . t~ "~. ~ t ~ ~ i~ i, ~t t l ,c w i' ;7 7;j~' r. ,r r i~: ~.x, .. . ~ . . ~ . '- -«__ __'_ _~. .. ' ~~ . ~ . ~~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ .. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,.December 2, 19b~ 4234 VARIANCE N0. 2032 - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue consideration of (Continued) Petition for Variance No. 2032 to the meeting of December 30, 1968, in order to allow the staff time to prepare a study regarding price signs on service stations throughout the City. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE N0. 2033 - PUBLIC HEARENG. ROBERT TUCKER, 333 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, :r.,;.-~' California, Owner; AD ART, 14365 Firestone Boulevard, La Mirada, ~~ California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A ~rY ', FR~e-STANDING SIGN, (2) LOCATION OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN, AND (3) MAXIMUM AREA OF A WALL ~ SIGN, TO PERMIT REPLACING AND ENLARGING EXISI'ING SIGNS on property described as: An "L" ,.,~,~~a shaped parcel of land located south and west of the southwest corner of Euclid Street and ~~^ ~ Broadway, having frontages of approximately 124 feet on Euclid Street and approximately ~c., " 42 feet on.Broadway, and further described as 333 South Euclid Street. Property presently classified G1, GENERpL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ?r Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the uses ~,, ..;; established in close proximity, and the requested variances to permit replacing and en- 5 F; la~ging existing signs of 34 feet; that the sign was a nonconiorming sign and was installed ~~ prior to the adoption of the sign ordinance; that the petitioner proposed to expand the a height of the existing wall sign to 5 feet and the coverage to 32.4~, whereas only 2096 ;~ coverage of a wall surface was permitted; and that while the change of copy and design of ~a the free-standing sign would appear to constitute a legitimate variance request regarding ~r.,y,'~ both the height and location, since the sign was existing before the present sign ordinance, r there would appear to be no valid reason for expansion of the wall sign to greater than ~- 60% of the total area permitted by Code. Mr. Richard Nowicky, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and submitted the proposed changes in a colored rendering and noted that waivers were being requested for the height of the free-standing sign and permission to light the canopy area around the entire building; however, design-wise, it was diffi- cult to desiqn an attractive sign matching the building while staying with the areas permitted by Code; and that the proposed design would provide an attractive appearance to the building and be an asset to the area. Mr. Nowicky, in response to Commission questionin9, noted that the wall sign would:be back-lighted. - Mr. Robert Tucker, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted he would like to point out that with the addition ta the printed portion of the wall sign, it could not be considered copy since no name was indicated on the copy, and the extension of this facia would add lighting to the front of the property - therefore, it would be serving a dual purpose. Mr. Tucker, in response to Commission questioning, noted that because of the length of the frontage of the building, to reduce the height of the wall sign would place the sign out of proportion; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson inqiaired whether the statement made by Mr. Tucker meant that the sign was out of proportion. Mr. Tucker noted that by reducing the sign, it would be out of proportion; however, to improve the sign•as proposed would not only place the sign in proper perspective, but would add adequate lighting to the front area. The Commission inquired whether.the changeable portion of the existing sign wouid remain, or would it be removed? Mr. 7ucker noted that it would remain, and the only deletion would be reference to Weber. The Commission inquired of the staff wGCI~'iliCI IOy\iyyyj~g ~;~ •,•:;~1 ;~yi, ;,,; be within Code requirements might reduce the,lighting of the parking area. , Mr. Thompson noted that if the w~ll sign were approved for the.noith, south and east sides of the building, it would exceed Code by 60%; however, the problem was not the sides of the building, but the front of the building where Code permitted only 20% coverage, and the petitioner was proposing 32.4%, and by the removal of the emblem "W" and the world symbol separatin9 i:he facia portion from the main portion of the wall sign, ! this would then bring the sign within the confines of the Code requirements. The Commission then noted there would be no justification to approving the proposed sign since this would be setting a precedent for similar requests throughout the City. Further- more, the petitioner had not proven a definite hardship existed since every business was permitted a sign that was adequate. vy . ~°+r~ ~ ;w r~'1~ ;~ x ~*r r ~w s~ ~.c ~ ys' -~ : ~ r,~ _.. __. ~ Q ~ MINUTES, CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 2, 1968 4235 VARIANCE N0. 2033 - Mr. Tucker noted that it was necessary to have lighting of the wall (Continued) by the soffit sign proposed. '~ After further discussion between the Commission, the petitioner and ~x~, i the staff, it was determined that if no display were permitted, such as the letter "W" k,~-~ ,: and the world symbol, then the soffit might be considered a portion of the li9hting for ,,~,,:..4~ the area, and then inquired of the Assistant City Attorney whether or not the soffit:could ~F be considered lighting if no display portion wereplaced on it other than the main display ~ sign in the center. ~""'~ Mr. Dawson noted that if there were separations between the panels at either end of the `~ main portion of the wall sign and no lettering or symbol were placed on the soffit part, ,,-' then the sign might be considered to be in conformance with Code requirements; however, ~', :: '; ~« '''~~'~,'~~ the Commission would have to determine whether the lighted soffit was a portion of the ~':_:~~ sign or added lighting for the area. ~ ~ , THE HEARZNG WAS CLOSED. N: ' ~'t s.': Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 3:05 P.M. w~ ''` Further discussion was held by the Commission, and it was determined that if there were ~,,,~; a separation between the name poxtion of the sign and no other advertisin9 media, such r, as letters or the world symbol, placed on the balance, this could be considered a lighted ~ portion of the area - however, no advertising copy could be placed on the soffit separated ~:;;~;;~ from the main sign. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC68-346 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2033 in part, denying the requested waiver of maximum area of a wall sign, requiring that the wall sign with the signing at the lighted soffit proposed by the petitioner, after separation from the main advertising sign, 'should not be considered part of the sign but part of the lighting of the area; however, no type of advertising copy should be placed on the soffit, such as ~etters or world symbol as now indicated on the plans, and, therefore, the wall sign should conform with the sign ordinance requirements. Furthermore, an added condition that the property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans on file, provided, however, that the wall sign shall conform with Code requirements as previously indicated in the findings. (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. ABSENTe COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. LUCY CONIGLIO AND ANNA HATHAWAY (PARCEL 1) AND N0. 68-69-45 ORANGETHORPE PARK CORPORATION (PARCELS 2 AND 3), c/o Orangethorpe TENTATIVE MAP OF OwnersgrORANGETHORPE2PARKmCORPORATI0NNe4320tCampus~Drivef~Newport TRACT NOS. 6813, Beach, California, Agent; property described as: Three parcEls of 6814 AND 6143 land comprising a total of approximately 16.5 acres, having a combined frontage of approximately 601 feet on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 1,230 feet, the easterly boundary of said land being approximately 8(i8 feet west of the centerline of Kraemer Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, AND C-l, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONES. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. TENTATIVE TRACT REqUEST: DEVELOPER: ALBERT JOHNSON, 2550 :.West Rowland Avenue, Anaheim, California. ENGINEER: Raab 8 Boyer Engineering Company, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite I, Westminster, California; proposing 17, 15 and 18 R-3 zoned lots. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action, and the fact that on November 4, 1968, the Planning Commission recommended approval of G 1 zoning for the properties located east of subject property, and in conjunction with this reclassification action the Planning Commission also recommended approval of General Plan Amendment No. 111 which indicated commercial zonin~ along the east side of Kraemer Boulevard and multiple-family residential uses for the remainder of the property in this general area. ;;i~. .~ :;- '"' ~`t!t ~ ~..~yt r k ~. Y~.u'CI ~'?,_~4a~ ,~ c 9'S ytp. ty ~~ry'rl.Y r} . r0. ~x'7i' ~ i ~ S ~.~ '~y~i ~'~.t+.;~ ~~ ~y~.7 ~ ' :rr ~i 'Y';C'~ ^~ ,'~, .,l.. i r" E r.t, _ . Jn 9+fr y "~ ~Sx ~.J'7 ~. ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ m. Y ' "_~ . , . . . . . . . . ~ ~ ~ ' . . . . ~ . . ~. ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~L, ~ _ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 2, 1968 4236 ~f y >;~ RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Brown further noted that the petitioners were proposing to ~'~ N0. 68-69-45 subdivide subject property into a total of 50 R-3 zoned lots, ranging `°~. in area from 7300 square feet to approximately 9000 square feet for TENTATIVE MAP OF each lot and had indicated a four lex a a t t i '`~ p p r men un t was proposed to TRACT NOS. 6813, be constructed on each lot - however, no prACise development plans "~ 6814 AND 6143 were submitted with the proposal, and as a result of the Planning (Continued) C mm i ~~ o iss on recommending approval of General Plan Amendment No. lll _ ~ for this area, it would appear that the proposed land use would be ft appropriate. _ ;~ Mr. Ranald Fairbairn, real estate operator, indicated that a representative of the ~' engineer should be present; however, he was available to answer questions. ~,~ Mr. William Diehl, representing the engineer of the proposed tracts, appaared before the ~~'~^ Commission to answer questions; whereupon the Commission inquired what was planned '-' relative to Street "B° (Windsor Avenue) where it stubbed into the property to the east. ~% Mr. Diehl noted that this street would not tie in at the present time but would be stubbed for future access to the property to the north in the event the property northeasterly of this stub end developed for multiple-family residential uses. The Commission then inquired why consideration was being given to multi~ple-family residen- tial use since the Commission had recommended approval for commercial of this property. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that tentative plans had been ~~"•!~'~~ received for commercial uses; however, the Interdepartmental Committee felt the size ~ and shape of the commercial parcel to the east might not entirely develop for commercial r''r purposes and might develop for multiple-family usas - therefore, extending the street '~~ easterly, thence northerly, would provide additional circulation through the property to the north. ; The Commission then inquired why circulation was not proposed around the periphery rather th h '~'i an aving a street deadend into projected commercial uses. '<" .:::i Mr. Thompson noted that this was discussed at length at the Interdepartmental Committee meeting-by proposing the extension, this would giye additional circulation regardless f o what was developed, and the trash;trucks could then circulate to the north. Further discussion was held by the Commission relative to the deadend street and the ~ '` fact that the property approved to the east for commercial uses had only present~~d concept plans thaf itti t ! ; perm ng circulation from an R-3 tract into commercial uses might establish an undesirable circulation pattern, and a modified cul-de-sac should b 1 e required in the event the property to the east was developed for commercial uses; and that the Commission ~ should require the developer to stipulate to providing a modified cul-de-sac if the property to the east developed for commercial uses. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEpRING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Camp offered Re;olution No. PC68-347 and moved for its passage and adoption , seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 68-69-45 be approved, with a finding that the proposed extension of Winds e or Av nue easterly should be provided with a modified cul-de-sac in the event property to the east developed for commercial uses in order that commercial traffic would not be utilizing residential streets, and subject to conditi (S ons. ee 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. ABSHNT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to approvs Tentative Map of Tract No. 6813 subject to the followin conditio 1 g ns, Commissioner Camp seconding the motion and MOTION CARRIED: 1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall b e submitted in tentative'form for approval. 2. That the a~?proval of Tentative Map of Tract ISo. 0813 is granted subj~~ct to the a~proval of Reclassification No. 68-69-45. i Yfr ~ . -*~~ ~ ~ w``r 1 '` .:` ~ ~ ~, ~ Y``~4 ~`~ ~.,,t e`' f k~~~'~,t~ t J: ~'f'~r '~ 1 t . ir.,: : , ,,., ,- , r q ~.~. r ,+~ ~ ~,rt >r ,~ - ~.~.:~..1'- ;~,.a .,-~ .~ . ~: . , t~ ...:..L~~ _ ~ :~...i Sry~ . ... . .. . . .. . .. . .. . ~_ . .. _ . ~ .. ~ ~~. ~ . . . . . , . ~. ~ . . . ~ . ~ ' . ~ ` MINU?ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 2, 1968 4237 RECLASSIFICATION - 3. That a predetermined price for Lots "A" and "B" shall be N0. 68-69-45 calculated and an agreement for dedication entered into between the developer and the City`of Anaheim ,orior to approval of the TENTATIVE MAP OF final tract map. The cost of Lots "A" and "B" shall include land TRACT NOS. 6813, and. a proportionate share of the underground utilities and street 6814 AND 6143 improvements. (Continued) 4. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 5. Thet the vehicular access rights, except at street and~or alley openings to • Orangethorpe Avenue, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 6. That Streets "A" and "D" shall be named Temple Street and Temple Circle. Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6814 subject to the following conditions, Commissioner Camp seconding the motion and MOTION CARRIED: 1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 2. I'hat the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6814 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 68-69-45. 3. That a predetermined price fur Lot "A" shall be calcnlated and an agreement for dedication entered.into between the cleveloper and the City of Anaheim prior to approval of the final tract map. The cost of Lot "A" shall include land and ; a proportionate share of the underground utilities and street improvements„ 4. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 5. That Streets "A", "B" and "C" shall be named Temple Street, Windsor Avenue and Kensington Circle. Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 6149 subject to the following conditions, Commissioner Camp seconding the motion and MOTION CARRIEDs 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 Tenta~ive Map of Tract No. 6143 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 68-69-45. 3. That a predetermined price for Lots "A", "B" and "C" shall be calculated and an agreement for dedication entered into between the developer and the City of~Anaheim~~prior to approval of the final tract map. The cost of Lots "A", B and C shall include land and a proportionate share of the underground utilities and street improvements. ,; ;' ~ 4. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEqRING. VENIE DANIELS KNEIP, 422 South £ast Street, Anaheim, N0. 68-69-46 California, Owner; requesting that property described ass A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corr~er of East Street and Santa Ana Street and having app.roximate frontages of 177 feet on the east side of East Street and 110 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Street, and further described as 418, 422 and 426 South East Street be reclassified from the R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, to establish a convenience market with related commercial uses. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and the uses established in close proximity, noting that the applicant had stated he was request- ing the change in zone to establish a convenience mar;cet and other related commercial uses ` on the property - however, no specific plans of development were ~ubriitted with the appli- cation; that the present General Plan indicated low density re§idential uses for this area - however, the 1968'pieliminary General Plan indicated medium density uses as being appropri- ate in this general area; that there were existing neighborhood shopping facilities within two blocks af this intersection, and a convenience neighborhood store approximatelv two blocks to the west of this intersection - therefore, the basic issue before the Commission was the detexmination whether the proposed land use change would be appropriate to an area which was essentially residential in character and where ample commercial facilities were available within a short distance. ' i`~ ~ ~1 ."~,~° ~ ~ , r ~S ~~~~„'~"'f+IS~s .~ f?~i' f ~.~A~( ~L'.~ ,t, i M .; ~~~.a< '4a ff ~"`f` ~ ~L'a +~ ~ ~ v •`~ s: r s+°. `: o a ~~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 2, 1968 4238 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. James Kemmis, representing the petitioner and Walker 8 Lee Real N0. 68-69-46 Estaie, appeared before the Commission and noted that they had had (Continued) an o.,fer for a convenience shopping center and were negotiating the sale of the property at this time; therefore, no plans were submitted. The Commission inquired as to the justification for requesting commercial uses in a predominately residential area and why plans had not been submitted in order that the adjoining residents could determine whether the proposed use would be complimentary to the area. Mr. Kemmis noted that the convenience market representatives were of the opinion the proposed site would be a desirable location for the 7-11 Market, and that plans had not been submitted other than a rough sketch which they had because negotiations were still in process. The Commission was of the opinion that the proposed reclassification for commercial uses would have an undesirable effect on the surrounding single-family residential uses, and no evidence had been submitted that the proposed change would be a desirable change. Mr. Kemmis noted that the representatives of the convenience market felt this would be the highest and best use after studying the area. Mr. Robert L. Justice, 502 South Dawn Street, appeared before the Commission and presented a petition of opposition signed by 35 persons,from adjoining property owners, and indicated their opposition was based on the fact that the proposed zone change ~vould set an undesir- able precedent and would prove difficult for the City to deny future requests of commercial uses along East Street - therefore spot zoning should not be permitted; that East Street was a substandard arterial street and would not lend itself to being a business strip; that to permit commercial uses at this intersection would create a bottleneck to the traffic flow since the City had recently upgraded the street to its present•width and dedication was unobtainable from the single-family homeowners to the south and north; that the collision history of business strips in Oran9e County was evident, and the Traffic Engineer's only solution was to provide two-way turn lanes which East Street could not provide because of its substandard width; that on-street parking was not per- mitted on East Street, and if an overflow of parking occurred on the proposed commercial facility, this would create the overflow parking to be on Santa Ana Street and the adjoin- ing residential streets; that East Street now served for through traffic from the River- side Freeway on the north and the Santa Ana Freeway by way of Ha11 Road on the south, with industrial development on both ends - therefore, because of the growth of the City's industrial areas,E.ast'Street should be protected in order to maintain proper traffic flow; that adequate commercial facilities were available within two blocks to the north and '~ the west of this intersection - therefore the proposed facilities were unwarranted; and that from pnctures presented with the petition of opposition, evidence was available the streets, sidewalks and lawns would be perpetually littered with cans and trash, thereby deteriorating the residential integrity of the area. Another letter of opposition was read to the Commission relative to the undesirable precedent for commercial uses along the east side of East Street - converting single-family homes into strip commercial uses without benefit of commercial appearance, meetin9 the parking standards, destroying the residential integrity, and creating a traffic hazard due to the width of East Street at this intersection aad the amount of traffic and speed of vehicles on this street causing accidents, and t~ie resultant sirens and ambulances at all hours which would be harmful to the peace, health, safety and generzl welfare of the residents of this area. The Commission then indicated to the representative of the petitioner that since no plans of development for a use completely contrary to that established in the area had been presented, the Commission was unable to determine whether, in fact, a land use change should take place in this area; however, it was their opinion no land use change had taken place, nor should one be warranted to consider subject petition favorably. THE I-IEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-348 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 68-69-46 be denied on the basis that no land use change had taken place in the area to justify consideration of recommending a change to commercial uses in the area; that because of the fact that the 1968 preliminary General Plan indicated subject and adjoining properties for multiple-family residential uses and the report entitled "A Study of the Residential ~;omes Fronting on Arterial Highways" indicated this general area be ratained for residential use, denial should be in order. (See Resolution Book) r~ '+ ~ #- v t 4,~ ~' ~, ,,, i ~x""t~ '~ ~id'~ ~~~~ '"S~ 65 .~~~, ~~ '~'i rckt5r~.,3~ r t"~-' ~~ t trWt r j F "s ~ !` ~-~„ ;P ~S L~ r~ ua ~w~ t; E~ '+~ A, F~t, k~ r( '~ t .~' Cr~~ y S t r'^u ~ , i.. ~.. ~z,n y.. .c .~ _. .s'Y,~"' t 9 t a1;: > s#~k~ aFir .n w..~ ~. 4 l r. ~ s ."s, t .. ~~~.._.___ _._- ._ ~ C~ ` ~~ MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 2, 1968 4239 'RECLASSIFICATION - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following N0. b8-69-46 vote: (Continued) AYES: COMMISSIONHRS: A11red, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. UNION BANK, Sth 8 Figueroa Streets, Los Angeles, N0. 68-69-50 California, Owner; HARRY BOAND, JR., 7105 East Firestone Boulevard, Downey, California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly VARIANCE N0. 2034 shaped parcel of land having a frontage on the east side of Beach Boulevard of 160 feet and a depth of approximately 572 feet and being located approximately 840 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) LOCATION OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, (2) MINIMUM NUMBER OF COVERED PARKING SPACES, AND (3) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA ~F A DWELLING UNIT, TO PERMIT A 50-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. ! Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub'ect established in close proximity, noting that undevelo ed commercial~ property and uses to the north, an elementary school to the east, multiple-family residential and existing commercial and undeveloped commercial to the south, and commercial and commercial- professional to the west; that the petitioner requested waiver of the minimum floor area, location of accessory buildings, and distance of living units from a standard street - however, in subsequent talks with the petitioner, he had indicated he would be willing to increase the size of the bedrooms to the minimum floor area required by Code; that he would also increase the turning radius pad to 54 feet required by City service vehicles, such as fire and trash, and had further stipulated to eliminating the parallel parking shown along the north property line and replacing this with 18 more covered carports and landscaping between the carports; and that with this sevision, this would eliminate the weiver from parking standa:rds and the waiver of minimum floor erea - therefore, the only consideration before the Commission would be the.location of accessory buildings and the distence of living units from a standard'street. Mr. Maurice Cutner, 49 Rio A1to, Long Beach, appeared before the Commission representing the petitioner, the Union Bank of Los Angeles, and noted that the developer would be Harry Boand; that when the petition was submitted, there were numerous variances required, but after a number of conferences with the staff, they had attempted to redesign the development to conform with as much of the R-3 Zone requirements as possible, and he was requesting withdrawal of the original waiver of minimum number of covered parking spaces si~ce 63 were required and 70 were proposed, and the minimum floor area of a dwelling unit since the one-bedroom apartments had been redesigaed to meet Code requirements - therefore the plot plan submitted at the hearing indicated this, as well as the 54-foot turning radius required by the Fire Department. The Commission then revieK~d the submitted revised plan and noted +:>at since a'~4-foot turning was propos~r.d and was adequate to meet servicing the ~ear ~~,:~ments which were approximately 487 feet from Beach Boulevard with fire, police and .,~er City services, the requested waiver of distance of living units from a standard street should be con- sidered technical due to the fact that it was difficult to develop long, narrow parcels. The Commission then inquired whether the petitioner would stipulate that the revised plans submitted were in conformance with the original submitted with the exception of those changes indicated at the public hearing, since the staff had not reviewed the plans; whereupon Mr: Cutner indicated he would stipulate to this - that these plans were sub- stantially in conformance with the statements made. Mr. Cutner then voiced opposition to requiring payment of $150 per living unit for park and recreation fees, although he was aware this was now an ordinance, and the Commission and staff were unable to waive this requirement. However, he wished to go on record as being opposed to this since this would have to be reflected in higher rent; furthermore, they were already providing adequate recreation on.the land for the tenants,who would be primarily adults. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~~~ , ,~ -~. f ~ I''~ - _ -- .~Q~ ,,. .~ .~~, - .~- ..~ ~ . . ~ .. ..-,_\r MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 2, 1968 ~ , 4240 9 : RECLASSIFICATZON - Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC68-349 and moved for its N0. 68-69-50 passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Faranu, to recommend ~ to th'e City:Council that.Petition for Reclassification No. 68-69-50 VARIANCE N0. 2034 be approved, sub~ect to conditions. (See Resolution Book) (Continued) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: A1Tred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. ~ NOESe COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONBRS: Rowland. { Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC68-350 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2034 in part, waiving the location of'accessory buildings and distance of living units from a standard street, the latter being on the basis that a 54-foot turning radius was proposed at the terminus of the 25-foot private••drive which was adequate for public vehicles, such as fire and trash trucks; and waiver of the minimum floor area and minimum number of covered parking spaces had been withdrawn by the petitioner since revised plans eliminated these requests; and sub~ect 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. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. DUAYNE C. PRESCOTT, 846 South Hilda Street, Anaheim, N0. 68-69-51 California (Parcel A) and MR. AND MRS. GENE FELLING, 2220 South Loara Street, Anaheim, California (Parcel B), Owners; RICHARD BROOKS, JR., VARIANCE N0. 030 450 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California, Aqent; property described as: I'wo parcels of land having a combined frontage of approximately 233 feet on the east side of Loara Street and a maximum depth of approximately 300 feet, the northerly boundary of said land being approxima'tely 750 feet south of the centerline of Orangewood AOenue, and further described as 2160 and 2220 South Loara Street.` Property presently classified R-p, pGRICULT:iRAL, ZONE (PARCEL A) AND R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENI'IAL,.ZONE DEED RESTRICTED TO ONE-STORY CONSTRUCTION (PARCEL B). REQUES7ED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPI.E-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE (PARCEL A) AND REMOVAL OF DEED RESTRICTIONS ON PARCEL B. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, (2) MIA]IMUM BUILDING SETBACK, AND (3) MAXIMUM PERMITTED P!~iMBER OF MAIN BUILDINGS PER SITE, TO PERMIT A 30-UNII', ONE AND 1'WO-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the uses established in close proximity, and the fact that a portion of subject property known as Parcel "B" had R-3 zoning limited to one-story construction, and Parcel"A" was still zoned R-A; that the petitioner was requesting waiver of the maximum building height within 150 feet of the R-A Zone tc the west, minimum building setback from a local street and maximum number of main buildings per site; that Parcel "B° was reclassified to the R-3 2one in March, 1959, at which time height limitations were one-story and properties to the north and south had developed with single-story construction; that single-story apartments were proposed to the rear of the R-l to the east, and two-story was proposed within 52 feet of the R-3 to the north and south; that the density proposed was approximately 22 dwellin9 units per net acre, with a site coverage of 39.5% - therefore, subject petition could be considered both under the R-3 Zone and a planned residential development based on its coverage and the fact that it had five main structures; that parking was proposed in accordance•with the R-3 site development sta ndards; and that a peripheral drive varying between 20 and 28 feet in width encircled the property. Mr. Brown further noted that the 1968 preliminary General Plan indicated medium density residential uses would be appropriate in this immediate area, and many of the properties on the east and west sides of Loara Street between the single-family residential tract to'the north and the elementary school to the south in the City of Garden Grove had been zoned or approved for R-3; however, earl'ier zoni~ngact'ions to R-3 deed restricted the property to single-story, and this was based on the fact that the R-3 Zone had no site development standards requiring a 150-foot setback from single-family zoned property, and since the'proposal appeared to be an extremely well designed, low-density, multiple- family residential development with considerable open space and recreation area, together with proper circulation, this would appear to be an asset to the area. : :, n~ i 4'. ~:~..°}~n' ~ k.n y Y, njvr{~ .',-~+i 1'ri~e~ ~~r M h r+ ,t zi ~ ` ~^ ~` Y ~ s,~ } : i t . I ~ Y S p.l. . R . y 1 r4 ~ f ~" ,9 5. ~. t . ~ .1 . .. ~ . . . . . . ~ ~ . . . . . ~ ~ . ' ` ` • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 2, 1968 4241 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Richard Brooks, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the N0. 68-69-51 Commission and noted he was the architect of the proposed develop- ment and noted that as had previously been stated by Mr. Brown, VARIANCE N0. 2030 the proposal incorporated a great deal of open space and a low-medium (Continued) density concept; that the architectural plans illustxated the circu- lation for the property which was designed to have buildings in the middle with parking adjacent to the livin9 units and considerable open space in the center; that single-story const'ruction was proposed at the easterly end of subject property, with three-bedroom structures adjacent to the carports, with a 28-foot drive'betvueen.:the property line and the carports, which acted as a, substantial buffer between the two-story constrvction proposed toward the Loara Street frontage and the single-family homes to the east; that he had originally started to design a develop- ment for one of the owners, but the adjoining owner had contacted him and as a result, these two narrow, long parcels were now being proposed as one project; and that it was .the intent of the property owners to retain the residential environment of the area, providing for considerable landscaping and architecturally compatible structures. Mr. Gene Felling, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and noted he lived on a portion of subject property for the past six years and had made a number of friends in the area, and with this in mind, he had attempted to have something designed that would be an asset to the area, this being the reason for having a low-medium density project with more than one-bedroom apartments, and that the*~ would be fewer automobiles projected into this area because of the size of the units, rather than one-bedroom units. Mr. Jack Rogoway, 2200 South Loara Street, appeared in opposition, noting that he resided immediately north of subject property, where he managed a 15-unit apartment development and had resided in this area for ten years; that the present owner had purchased the property as income property and it was felt that limiting all apartments in this area to one story should b~ maintained; that proposing 30 units on less than two acres would be a considerably higher density than permitted on the property to the north and south; that he was not opposed to apartments as such, but waiver of the building setback and number of buildings per building site, together with the request for removal of the deed restrictions limiting the property to one story in hei9ht,would be granting a privi- lege not afforded the other property owners who had developed prior to this date; and that approval of two-story in this area would estahlish a precedent for two-story on all vacant properties on the west side of Loara Street, creating additional traffic which would be detrimental to the children walking to school. Furthermore, carports would not be an asset to the area, nor would the privacy of the one-story apartments to the north be enjoyed, and it was his opinion anyone moving into the area should have some obligation to the area since the property owners having R-3 zoning had developed in accordance with the one-story height limitation. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the apartment development to the north of subject property, which Mr. Rogoway was managing, was more restricted because the entire property was within 150 feet of the R-1 property to the north and east, while the waiver being requested was waiver of the one-story height limitation from the R-A to the west. Mr. Thompson, in response to Commission questioning, noted that the deed restrictions were placed on subj=ct property at the time prior to the R-3 site development standards which limited the height of multiple-family development to one story within 150 feet of R-1, and those apartments developed prior to the R-3 revision were one story; however, they would not meet the present standards as to setbacks and access drives. Mr. Brooks, in rebuttal, stated that if the proposed development were designed to meet the minimum R-3 standards, they would be permitted to construct on the property line to the north, but it was just as important for an architect and designer to have develop- ments which were acceptable to the proposed renters, and since this was a joint venture, both property owners had the interests of the neighbors in mind - therefore, the plan itself indicated unusual use of the property for multiple-family development and still maintaining the one-story height limitation within 150 feet of the R-1 to the east. Mr. ThompEOn then noted that although the staff report indicated this as a low density development, it was in the lower spectrum of the R-3 density which permitted up to 36 dwelling units per net residential acre. Mr. Brooks noted +.hat the coverage was 39.5% which provided for considerable open space between both the property lines and the units proposed. A letter of approval was received from a property owner on the west side of Loara Street which indicated no objection to two-story construction. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ,~~,~Y4~,~ h ~~ap~ ^) s,'., i"~~~. ~~~ t}~~G>'1~r'~7w'~'~l~'`~`1~'~'~~'1'3^3' ,~is^~ 3~~~'~'1.St~. ~~~'~' ~~`4 ~•" ~ va'~~T ~ ~ ~~~~,. ''l'{ ^!~`-\~Y`~~~~ L "i "S F ? Y~ ! ~ Y Hk ' ~ , M n , C „-F S n._.~ :" ,7~..: ~ ~ ~ ~ ',y ;, MINUIES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 2; 1968 4242 ? RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Farano expressed concern relative to the deed reatrictions N0 68-69-51 d ~ ;; . an inquired whether these weie placed on the.propertyrbecause of the , characteristics'of the area or beceuse no site development standards VARIANCE N0: 2030 were available foi the R-3 Zone ' '' ~ . . '(Continued) - ,,, , ` Commissioner Camp noted that prior to the adoption of the site`,develop-. me , a '= b nt stendards for the:R-3 Zone, any approval of R-3.was;:required to ' file deed restrictions limiting the'height to o e t i N . n s ory,w thin 150 feet of R-.1 property;. and that;many .times'these restrictions were,initiated.by the:City Council. Commissioner Herbst offesed Resolution No. PC68-351 and mo4ed for its passage.and adoption,~ ec d ` s on ed by Commissioner Farano, to recommend to the City.Council that Pgtition for'Reclas'- sification No. 68-69-51 be a prov d e t bli h > p e , s a s ing-R-3 zoning on Parcel'"A°and,recommending ; the petitioner receive consent'from tkie Cit Cou il f v y nc or,remo al of deed restrictions on~ Parcel "B", limiting the height to one story, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution '` Book) . 1i ~ :a On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by tlie following vote: p AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.' ~ '; ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ; ~ Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-352 and moved for its passage and adoption, ~ seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition far Variance No. 2030, subject to conditions (S e R l . e eso ution Book) ;~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin vote: '~ g AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, MungalT. NOES: COMMISSIONERSs None. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ~ ~ RECESS - Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recess the~meetin g• `~ A ; Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. '~ The` meeting recessed at 4:05 P.M. -~;~' RECONVENE - Chairman Allred reconvened the meeting at 4:15 P.M. '~G ~~ , Commissioners Farano and Rowland being absent. F~>~ ~ ~ };. ,u a, ; RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ANGEL t:ERMA MALER AND ALMA CLARA MALER, 2441 West N0. 68-69-52 Lincoln Avenue Anah i C ~~i°, ` , e m, alifornia, Owners; ROBcRT R: PRALI.E, 10755 Oak Street, Stanton, California, Agent;`property described as: VARIANCE N0 2035 tr:; ~~;~ . An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of a '''~ mately 521 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 405 feet, being located approximately 1,230 feet east of the centerline of Magnolia Ave ,; nue, and further described a.s 2441 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ~' REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. '` REQUESI'ED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM H£IGHT 1KITHIN 150 fEET OF R-A ZONE , (2) LOCATION OF ACCESSORY BUILDING, (3) MINIMUM DISTANCE "' BETWEEN BUILDINGS, AND (4)`LIVING UNITS LOGATED ~"JITHIN '^' 200 FEET OF A STANDARD STREET. . . ~ ~ ~ ~ i;~ : . . ~ ~ ~ . ~ . .. ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and the uses established in close proximity, noting that the waiv i f th ~~ ,:r. iy ,~'' e o e structural height, limitation was from the property to the east and swim school to"the west ;,"~' 1` , as well as the high school to the north; that the two-story apartment development was.set back 150 feet from the R-1 to th so th ~ ' . e u ; that the plans indicated a 20 to 25-foot wide per'ipheral drive ' with carports located adjacent'to the side'and rear propert line tha u s~~ ' ' y s; t maxim m coverage was 54.4%;and unit density was 30.4 dwelling units per net acre; that the applicant..had observed the 35-foot Cou il , ~ '~% nc policy structural setback requiiement on Lincoln Avenue; and that the existing General Plan indicated commercial-professional uses for subject property-, however the recent Multiple-Famtly Residentiel Study and the 1968 prelimi r G n ' ' na y e eral Plan indicated multiple-family uses would be appropriate for.this area. Furthermore, as a result of necessary land s embl ~ :a s y and new property line cuts, the landlocked R-A parcel and an R-A parcel of less than one acre had been created to the-east of subj t r ` ; ec p operty. ,. ,;, J , _, ~ ' ~ - _ ~„~, _-- - - - ~ ~ ~ -- - ~ . „~MINUTES, CIT1f~PLANNING COMMISS?ON, December 2; 1968 4243 ~ 'RECLASSIFICATION -'Mr. Phillip'Case, representing Randale Homes, developers of the `N0. 68-69=52' 'property, appeared before the Commission and noted that`a 109-unit, ` 'medium density development was proposed; that the development would VARIANCE N0. 2035 be an adult only facility, and wouTd, therefcre, add no children to ,'(Continued) the.schooIs; that a11 the units would exceed zhe minimum sta.ndards, ~ ranging from 750 square feet for one-bedroom apartments to 1250 square• " 'feet;for three-bedroom apartments; that a closed ~ourt concept was ''proposed as,had been developed in the past; with the front door antrance coming from the court;;'that +,nis design was better than scattered_buildings-aod afforded maximum privacy and safety fiir the tenants; that the setback 'frr_,,, Lincoln t~venue was observed since the bui•lding was proposed.44 feet from the Lincoln Avenue property line; that the patios proposed'for the apartments fronting on Lincoln Avenue would have a 6-foot'high'decorative wall; and.that the~waivers requested were technical - one being the one-story height limita,tion within 150 feet of the R-A property to the east, and if this were any problem, the'brother of the petitioners had authorized him to request R-3 zoninq for this property. Furthermore, it was not feasible to de'sign these units so that they would be no less than 200:'feet from Lincoln Avenue, and the landlocked parcel was owned~b'y a'brother of the pstitioners and it was hoped to place carport3 on the property if the nroperty could not be clearly dc~fined. Commissioner Farano entered :ne Council Chamber at 4:20 P.M. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that Condition No. 4 of the recommended conditions of appr~val for the reclassification would resolve any pioblem relative to the landl~~cked parcel. ~ N~ one appeared in ~~pposition to subject petitions. THE HEARING WAS CLUSED. Commissioner Camp offered Reso~.-`;,nn No. PC68-353 and mov~d for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Munga:'. ~o recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 68-69-52 •„ approved, subjec± to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was qassed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gaucr, Herbst, Mungall. NOES: ' COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC68-354 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2035, subject to condi- tions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONeRS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CC'uIMISSIONERS: Rowland. ABSTAINs COMMISSIONERS: Fa•rano. REPORTS AND - ITEM A10. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Work session relative to Agricultural Section 18.16.030(4) Zoning,Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that there was no one to represent the produce stand operators in the Council Chamber; therefore, the work session between the Commission and these operators would not be considered at this hearing. ITEM N0. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1035 - Grace E. Dickinson - Proposal to establish a 99-bed convalescent hospital - ReqUest for an extension of time. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Prown presented a request from the leaseholder of the property conaidered under Conditional Use Permit No. 1035 for an excension of time for the completion of conditions approved by the Planning Commission on July 11, 1968, to permit the establishment of a 99-bed convalescent hospital, and noted that none of the conditions of said ccnditional use permit had been completed; however, the staff ~ ~ ,i , Ky"w~P T M1~ ~, ,~„'.`r ,~'t ~r'°m~e ~~~ ~ ' ~~. / '~', ~ f"s ( ~ ' ~ x ,1~ ' ' ~ v ':~ u ,. r 7 r.;r _ / ~ , ~ ~ ~~. MINUTES, CITY PLAIdNING COMMISSION, December 2, 1968 4244 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 2 (Continued) recommended a six-month extension of time be granted subject to the owner of subject property deeding to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 53 feet in width from the centerline of Lincoln Avenue for street widening purposes within thirty days from the granting of said extension of time, said time extension to expira July el, 1969. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant a six-month extension of time for the completion of conditions under Resolution No. PC68-197, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1035, subject to the dedication of a strip of land 53 feet in width from the center- line of Lincoln Avenue for street widening purposes, said time extension to expire July ?, 1969. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 3 Orange County Street Naming Committee - Street name change - Orchard Drive to Kellogg Drive. Assistant Zonin9 Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed a request from the Orange County Street Naming Committee for the Planning Commission's comments and recommendations on the re- namin9 0: Orchard Drive - the north-south portion - to Kellogg Drive between Yorba Linda Boulevard and Orangethorpe Avenue. ~ It was noted that at the Commission's September 11, 1968 meeting it was recommended to the City Council that the old alignmen~ of Orchard Drive south of the Esperanza High f School site be renamed Woodwind Lane in its east-west portion and Kellogg Way in its t north-south portion; furthermore, due to the fact that practically no land development ~ other than agricultural has taken place on either side of Orchard Drive with the exception of an existing elementary school, very few persons would be affected by the proposed street name change, bu't could avoid some of the confusion in the future when development took place since there was still an Orchard Drive located in this same area which was oriented east-west. However, with this change of the north-south Orchard Drive, it was further noted that the old north-south alignment should have a different name to avoid confusion for fire, police, and post of£ice service, and the nart~e Post Lane was suggested. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Oraage County Street IJaming Committee be urged to rename the north-south new alignment of Orchard Drive, southerly of Yorba Linda Boulevard, Kellogg Drive, and that the present Kellogg Way, which was assigned to thE old north-south alignment, be renamed ?ost.INay to avoid confusion in answering emerger,cy calls and to facilitate post office service. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 4 Southern California Planning Congrese Dinner at ' the Convention Center December 12, 1968. Development Services Director Alan Orsborn advised the Commission that a conflict of two events was scheduled for December 12 - namely, the Southern California Planning Congress and the installation of new officPrs for the Board of Real Estate of the City of Anaheim; that all Councilmen had been sent a:letter to advise •them ielative'to the co~flict in dates, as well as the Planning Commission - however, no response had been received from the City Council, and from conversations with the Commission, a number of them had always attended the installation of the Board of Real Estate. Therefore, since the City of Anaheim was the host city, the Commission might wish to appoint a member to represent them in the event all of the Commissioners were considering going to the realty board installation dinner. After considerable discussion, Commissionei Gauer noted he would attend the meeting, and Commissioner Allred indicated he v.•nv,:d give the welcoming address of the Southern California Planning Congress. Mr. Orsborn also advised the Commission that members of the Planning staff would be attending the Planning Congress functi:on. ADJOURNMENI' FOR DINNER - Commissioner Farano offered a mc+tion to temporarily adjourn the meeting for dinner. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ihe meeting adjourned at 4:45 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Allred reconvened the meeting at 7:30 P.M., Commissioner Rowland being absent. _. _ , ,G. ~.. ~ . .~ . ~ , -. , ~ . . . , . . . .... ...... . . ...:. . ... ..A '; •,. ,. :~~ t ~. K i 7 "i; r. ".~ .i .' ~. ~ . ~ V u:: r S. i i tn, r~.~ ? 'riX J; :-~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 2, 1968 4245 ' ~, RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL, 204 East ,` N0. 68-69-48 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property ~ described as: An "L" shaped parcel of land located north and east of the northeast corner of Euclid Street and Orangewood Avenue, hav- '°' ing a frontage of approximately 167 feet on Orangewood Avenue and a frontage of approxi- mately 220 feet on Euclid Street, be reclassified from the G1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE `' to the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subjact property, noting '~''; that the City Council initiated the petition because of the fact that complaints were ''a made to the City Council from the single-family homeowners to the north and east regard- ~•'.;;':~, ing conditions of the " as a result of these complaints~ftherCitydCouncil instructed theSCityuAttorneyntosnotify the property owners that the property should be cleared and a masonry wall constructed, and if this were not done, the property would be reverted to R-A zoning. Subsequently, a meeting was held at the home of one of the'complaining residents which included the City Attorney, a representative of the Development 5ervices Department, Mr. George Argyros representing the developer, and approximately ten of the residents, at which time it was mutually agreed that an 8-foot masonry wall with a decorative capping would be constructed, the property cleaned up, and dirt piles leveled by November 7, 1968. Upon investigation of the property by the members of the Development Services staff on Novem- ber 7, none of the conditions had been accomplished, and on November 8 the staff contacted the developers and advised them they were advertising the reclassification action from C-1 to R-A on the property as directed by the City Council. The developers advised the staff that plans for the 8-foot masonry wall had been submitted to the Building Department, ~', although no building permit had been obtained, and they would accelerate their actions necessary for the completion of the conditions relative to construction of the wall and ground clearing prior to the Planning Commission meeting of December 2, Furthermore, a field inspection was conducted by the staff on November 26, and the wall was ~nder construction; therefore, the Planning Commission would have to determine what action they would like to take on subject petition. The Commission Secretary read a lef#er-from the owner of subject property and the ~ developer, requesting a two-week extension of time be granted to complete the conditions. Mr. George Argyros, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted ~ they had some internal problems; that the wall was under construction and should have been ~ completed as of this date, but they were waitir,g for the company who constructed the block ` wall to remove their equipment in order that the site might be leveled, and it was hoped ~ this would be accomplished by the end of this week - therefore the request for a continu- E ance of two weeks for consideration of reverting subject property to the R-A Zone. Commissioner Herbst noted he had measured the wall on the south side of subject property and it measured only 7 feet high, whereas it had been agreed an 8-foot high wall would be constructed. Mr. Argyros noted that the contractor had talked with representatives of the City relative to the heignt; that although their contract had indicated an 8-foot high wall, the con- tractor was attemptin9 to decide whei:her or not the wall should be stepped down in the front setback. The Commission then inquired whether the wall should have been 8 feet, or was it supposed to be stepped down. Mr. Argyros replied that ~.he agreement was for an 8-foot high wall, and this was what they had expected in the contract; that it was hoped to have the property cleaned up - however, they had no control over outsiders dumping excessive ground on this vacant property, and this was primarily done by pool companies; that they had been attempting to develop the property; but the convenience market they proposed to have had been turned down twice by the A.B.C. Board for off-sale beer and wine license because of protests made by the schools, and because of this protest they must wait another year before reapplying, and it was hoped this would be approved after the first of the year - then construction would start on the convenience shopping center. Mr. Dick Rowan, 2057 Lido Lane, appaared before the Commissic~ and noted that his property abutted subject property, and approximately two and one-half years ago this was recommended for rezoning; however, up to the present time, only a service station had been constructed and a dump had resulted due to the fact that the property had not been developed; that the developer could have cleaned up the property before this; that'he~had discussed the height of the wall with the contractor and had been informed that there would be two 8-inch step-downs on the 8-foot wall - this, then, would result in his neighbor having a step- down in the center of his lot which would appear to ba unsightly; and then inquired whether or not the developer was proposing to sell the property since he had noted two - ~"'°,}i' • ~. '` f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~f V . . . . . . . . . 1~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 2, 1968 4246 RECLASSIFICATION - signs recently had been placed on the property, and if the property ~ N0. 68-69-48 were..sold, this might jeopardize the requirement of developing the ' (Continued) property under the precise plan which was presented to the Commission ~ ~ and Council. +~r,~, ~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thnmpson advised Mr. Rowan that since approval of Reclassifica- ~~ + tion No. 65=66-100 was tied into.specific plans, if the plans were submitted which were ~i~ ; not in accordance with those originally approved, the petition would have to be re- ~; advertised for public hearing and all interested property owners would be notified. ~~s ~, Mi. Rowan noted that when the pla.ns were submitted, this was to have been a very high- ~ grade convenience shopping center, and no mention of a liquor store was proposed at tne -~F;~ ~ time of approval - therefore, the school opposed the beer and wine application. ~ ~~t.~.i~;~a . . . ~ ,~,~ A Mr. Argyros noted that the license was for off-sale beer and wine for a Speedee Mart ~' "j and there were no plans to sell the property; however, his telephone number had changed ~ ~~ recently and ca11s were not referred to him because of this change in number - therefore ,, '', he had erected two temporary signs with the new telephone number on it. Furthermore, it ~ was their intent to develop the property for a junior convenience type market or a liquor ,, ,~:` delicatessen of high quality and at present were working with the convenience market for 4 development, and then apologfzed for the delay in construction of this shopping area. r ' The Commission inquired why it was necessary to use the threat of rezonin9 to R-A in ~,". ~~~ order to obtain the wall and the necessary cleaning up of the property since this was ~ ~ indicative of insincerety on the part of the developer to maintain good relationships i,., ~, with both the City and the adjoining property owners; that even with the threat of re- ~ zoning the property to R-p, the property had not been cleaned up as of the public hearing - ~`, ~ therefore the request for continuance was a tactic of delay without any evidence of comp?y- '~ in with the g ground. ~:';;;,;;;;;,;;, 9 problem of levelin the Mr. Argyros noted that a considerable amount of ground had been removed once before and this was done several months ago, and the property again was subjected to intruders placing dirt on the property without permission; however, they had requested that the service station clean up their property, as well as the surrounding property, and the balance of the property would then be cleaned up with the ground leveled and excess dirt removed. The Commission advised the representative of the developer that any further delay without positive evidence of reason for an additional delay would not be greeted with any type of kindness by the Commission. Commissioner Herbst advised the representative of the developer that he would again meabure the height of the wall before the next public hearing and requested that the staff ascer- tain why the wall was being stepped down since an 8-foot wall was agreed upon. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 68-69-48 to the meeting of December 16, 1968, to be scheduled as the first pait of the afternoon session. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The Commission further indicated they would make another field inspection prior'to the next public hearing to determir.e whether the developers had complied with the requirements. GENERAL PLpN - PUBLIC HEARING. HERMAN L. AND MURIEL LENZ (EXECUTRIX), 930 South AMENDMENr N0. 96 State College Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owners; MC MICHAEL (READVERTISED) COMPANY, INC., 469-A West Valencia Drive, Fullerton, California, Agent; property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of RECLASSIFICATION approximately 30 acres of land having a frontage of approximately N0. 68-69-47 661 feet on the north side of Wagner Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 1,280 feet, the westerly boundary of said parcel being VAP.LQNCE N0. :031 approximately 661 feet east of the centerline of State College ' Boulevazd. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. 7ENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 6809 REQUESTED CLASSIFIC.ATION: R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR SPACE TO PERMIT 176 ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 96: To review present land use policies and consider possible amendment from low density residential to low-medium density residential for undeveloped properties located within the area generally soutti df South Street, wRSt of Sunkist Street, north of Wagner Avenue anJ east of State Co~'?ege Boulevard. - -- -- ~~-.-R 2~.~rrr - ~ w+" ~:- ~ . )- ~ a ~- ' g~ .~ u.~~+'~~~a'~. :~* c ^'S!vi~'^~ ..>_ _ .. _.. ~. . . . . . . . - ` _ _ ~ E . _ , - . . _ . ,,, . . . ~x~y~x,_,+~;~~ ~ `~`'n?~.~~ y ~Y~`s~ d~ ~r • ~ ~t~ ~~~ ~~`~'''~*S ~ ~,. ~ y Yn r ~r F Y , . ~ .-~..:, „ ~. , ~. ~ ~~_ _-... , - ~, ~ ~.. . . ~ ~ : ~ .. ~ . ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~...J MINUTES,`CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 2, 1968 424~ GENERAL PLAN - TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: MC MICHAEL COMPANY, 469-A West AMENDNI~NT N0. 96 Valencia Drive, Fullerton, California. (READVERTISED) ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering Company, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; RECLASSIFICAI'ION proposing the subdivision of a 30-acre site N0. 68-69-47 into 176 R-2-5~00 zoned lots. VARIANCE N0. 03 Associate Planner Marvin Krieger presented General Plan Amendment No. 96 readvertised, noting that the exhibits presented at the TENTATIVE MqP OF previous public hearing in July, 1967, were posted on the west wall TRACT N0. 6809 of the Council Chamber (copy of the General Plan Amendment No. 96 ~ (Continued) Report to the Commission on file in the Development Services Depart- ment). Upon conclusion of Mr. Krieger's presentation, the Commission inquired wh2ther the designation and table of estimates of number of dwelling un ;, population, school population and traffic count regarding low-medium density took into consideration R-2-5000. Mr. Krieger replied that the low-medium density did not reflect the R-2-5000; however, they had the data available if the Commission desired to have these figures quoted - i whereupon the Commission directed Mr. Krieger to quote the estimates for the 30-acre site. Mr. Krieger noted that under the R-2-5000 Zone, there would be 171 dwelling units with an approximate population of 684; 130 - K-6 students, 56 - 7-9 grades, and 53 - 10-12 grades. The number of dwelling units was an increase of approximately 24~ under the 30-acre site, 30% under the 40, and 30,~ under the 50-acre site, and that under the ; R-2-5000 for the 40-acre site there wnuld be a_n increase of 34 in the K-6 grades; 19 in the 7-9 grades, and 19 in the 10-12 grades; and that the increase on the 50-acre site for K-6 population would be 65, 7-9 grades 28, and 10-12 grades 26. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the uses established in close proximity, and the requested waiver to permit construction of homes with 1252 to 1549 square feet, while the minimum livable floor space for this sectior. of the City was 1525 square feet; that previous zoning action on subject property was to permit a mobile.home park, the first petition being withdrawn at the request of the peti- tioner in July of 1967,. and in December, 1967, the City Council denied a'similar request under Conditional Use Permit No. 973; that while the proposed classification was single- family residential in character, the overall increase in population density would be approxi-nately 43% over that which would be created by a standard R-1 zoned development - therefore, the primary question before the Commission would appear to be whether any significant changes had occurred or had been proposed that would indicate this area was appropriate for an increase in residential density. Mr. 3rown further noted that the Commission might also wish to consider requiring 7200- squar.e foot lots adjacent to the R-1 lots to the north and eastsince this was a de~.elop- ment requirement of several other !'~2-50~0 zoning actions, and that if subject petition were considered favorably, the Parksand Recreation Department had recommended a 30-foot wide dedication between the proposed lot Nos. 82 and 83 which would provide pedestrian accessway to the park site located easterly of subject property, which wo~ld be adequate for a 9-foot surfaoed walkway, landscaping, and a 6-foot masonry wall on the property line, said landscaping between the wall and sidewalk to be installed and maintained by the Parksand Recreation Department. Mr. Cal Queyrel, representing the developer of subject property, appeared before the Commission and noted the staff, in presenting General Plan amendments, sometimes created confusion, and he was desirous of clarifying some points since it was the interest of the developer to construct single-family homes similar to those that were depicted on an exhibit in red - which showed R-2-5000 homes southerly of the high school and park site on the south side of Wagner Avenue; therefore, the statement in the Report to the Commis- sion that no significant change had taken place to warrant consideration of heavier density was incorrect, and suliject property had very similar problems in character to that approved for R-2-5000 nortl~ and west of Sunkist Street to establish a pattern for the undeveloped properties in this area. Furthermore, the southeast corner of Wagner and State College Boulevard would be more appropriate for commercial with a neighborhood shopping center and a PRD or an R-3 would be more appropriate for the northeast corner. Mr. Queyrel further ~oted that the low-medium and medium density projections should not be taken into accoun.t since it was not the intent of the developer to construct apartments but single-family homes with 5 to 8 residences per acre instead of 18 ta 36 units per acre; that the developer of the R-2-5000 lots west and north of Sunkist and Ball had a well designed single-family homeson smaller lots and was also the designer of the lots on the west side of State College Boulevard, which were on 6000-square foot lots - there- fore, it was hi5 feelin9 that the controlling factor to consider was the change in zoning to the west and south of subject property which had been parmitted to develop v~ith less e--~~, „~- ~-~ h, ' - .~.,_. .f _ ,. ....,, ., , . , .. . _. ~~` t~~<~r titv~ ~ ~~~~~~IR f''r{~~ e`~~""t ~'~t{,.` avl ~i~y ~.,30$~~,~r }. ,-a^~rt 6 :~ s t H4u,u,1 .y ., ~ h F ,,.{r _, ~. ~ n ~ 1 ~ 2~ '4., rr t ~ < ~ ~~~-~ , , - .~..~_ ~ . . - . ~. . . , ~ . ~ ``,. . ~ ~ . . . .. ~ . ~ ~ . ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COlu1NISSION, December 2, 1968 4248 GENERAL PLAN - than 7200 square feet; and, furthermore, there were now two stub AMENDMENT N0. 96 streets projected to traverse svb~ect property which would also be (READVERTISED) extended if subject property were developed as proposed. RECLASSIFICATION Mr. Robert McMichael, 469-A West Valencia Drive, Fullerton, developer N0. 68-69-47 of the proposed subdivision, appeared before the Commission and noted that the plans submitted to the Commission on subject.property were VARIANCE N0. 2031 similar to those being developed in another tract on the north side of Broadway, easterly of Magnolia Avenue, at which time the Commission TENTATIVE MAP OF had felt this was a good type home - therefore an example of this type TRACT N0. 6809 of home was also submitted for development on subject property; that (Continued) the homes on the west side of Sunkist Street north of Ball Road must have been reviewed by the Commission and considered favorably - there- property; that his companyhhadWdeveloped5eightatractsainPthe1Cite durinvEtheing subject and all hor~es had been sold because they were offering a home which people likedtand~within the price range they could afford, said tracts having been R-2-5000 tracts; that not every- one was desirous of spending their entire weekends maintaining the lawns and gardens; that most of the proposed homes would have rear yards of 25 to 33 feet, and some of the 5000- square foot lots had smaller rear yards when one story was proposed, but with larger rear yards when two story was developed; that homes could not be purchased for $19,000 or less within the City of Anaheim, and the proposed homes would be selling between $26,000 and 530,000, and within a couple of years would appreciate to $33,000. Figures of three tracts developed by Mr. McMichael were then presented to the Commission, with one of the tracts having lots of 50 by 120 feet located on the south side of South Street, just easterly of State College Boulevard; another tract located at Loara and Alomar; and a third tract located at Euclid and Alomar - with downpayments ranging from a minimum of $2,350 to a maximum of $17,000 - all homes being in a price range from $22,575 to ~26,650, and of these 51 homes, only one was not sold at the present time. Mr. McMichael further noted that his firm was not interested in developing apartments, but was desirous of providing single-family homes for people who planned to reside in the City at a price they could afford. Mrs. Ra1ph Biester, 2240 Olmstead Way, appeared befo.re the Commission in opposition and ' inquired whether the developer was also the one who developed the homes on Plymouth Street; whereupon Mr. McMichael stated he was the developer, and these were~primarily two-story ~ homes on 50 by 120-foot lots - however, those proposed on subject property would be primarily one-story. I Mrs. Biester then noted that the homes on Plymouth Street were not constructed with wood shingles but had composition roofs, which were not complimentary to the adjoining proper- ties, and then inquired whether the plans be.fore the Commission would tie development of subject property for R-2-5000 into specific plans. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised Mrs. Biester that it would depend upon the manner in which the Commission approved the proposed request since R-1 zoning was not tied into plans unless special waivers were requested, and when waivers were requested, the developer was required to construct in accordance with plans submitted. Mrs. Biester then inquired why R-1 zoning was not considered with a waiver to permit a smaller lot. Mr. Thompson noted that wher. a request was made by the developer to construct a home on a smaller lot, the R-2-5000 2one was available - although the developer of subject property had propoced and developed homes on slightly larger lots, and in some instances the City had approved R-1 zoning with a variance for 6000-square foot lots, and the homes between State College Boulevard and East Street, northerly of the newest homes built on the Wagner property, had developed with 6000-square foot lots, and the developer of those new homes had requested permission to develop a similar type home on a 6000-square foot lot. Further- more, apartments could not be built on property zoned R-2-5000. Mrs. Biester further noted that the staff had prepared onsiderable documentation as to school populations by the influx of the verious types c: zoning; however, these figures could not be applied to schools in this general area since she had children who now attended school and were having classes in quonset huts. Mr. Richard McMilla- 924 South Peregrine Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and notF• ,hat the'residents had purchased their R-1 lots on the basis that the General Plan ht_ ', -n established for single-family homes on 7200-square foct lots For this area; that ~titioner had been attempting for a number of times to obtain a more intense use ~ : property, as was the case of the forr,er property owr.er of the present R-1 tract to .~~e north of suaject property, westerly of the junior high schc•ol; ' ~ _~~ ..,i.~.~~.~.._ - S. ~., *7. ~ _•~, ~5 . _ . . ~ _ _ . . ~ . ~ . _ ~~--~" ~ t il$ d` + ~.i.~ SS .. b ar t h r r z ~ i . a ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,.,J~r ~k ~ rT i ~t f~ v :~ '~yy ~ N'- , ~ ~ ; w ~~; ~ ` ? ' 4 ~r - ~$`~4 y,~ _kF < ~ a I~=s ~~ ~ ~..•^-~ si6 t ~n ti_<..... Y > O . . . ~ ~ ~`~ . . . . . ~ ~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 2, 1968 4249 GENERAL PLpN - that he had been opposing a more intense use of the vacant properties AMENDMENT N0. 96 in this area for the past five reclassification petitions, and he (READVERTISED) would continue to oppose them, and inquired why the Commission per- mitted'consideration of other than what was on the General Plan. RECLASSIFICATION _ N0.-68-69-47 The Commission advised the opposition that in the Cify of Anaheim the property owner had a right to ask for any use he desired; however, VARIANCE N0. 2031 this did not neceasarily mean that the City would be granting him his request, and the property owner had the same right as the single- TENTAI'IVE MAP JF family homeowners in wanting.it to remain R-1 - therefore, the R-1 TRACT N0. 6809 homeowners would always be required to defend the rights of their ~ (Continued) property when undeveloped properties ad3acent to them were proposed for a use which they did not approve. ' Mr. McMillan inquired whether the property rights of the single-family homeowners in this erea having property valued over $1 million did not enter into the consideration of property rights. Commissioner Herbst noted that his personal opinion was that no land use change had taken place in the area from that two years ago to warrant his consideration for a more intense land use; however, the property owner had the right to petition for the use every six months, according to the Anaheim Municipal Code. Chairman Allred advised the opposition that the prime concern of the Planning Commission was lacnd use and not the cost and type of structure that would be built on the property. t~r. McMillan noted he was primarily concerned with the environment of the neighborhood, and if the petitioner were desirous of investing in this area, he should request 7200- square foot lots rather than substandard lots as was proposed. The Commission further noted that the smaller lots and larger homes was a phase happening all over the country; therefore, the Commission was required to review plans to determine whether or not a reclassification petition or proposal would affect adjoining property, and that many homeowners were now undesirous of maintaining large yards. Commissioner Farano inquired as to the basic opposition Mr. McMillan had to the proposal of R-2-5000 and what effect it would have on his property. Mr. McMillan noted his property was immediately adjacent to subject property to the east, and if he were to consider purchasing his fiome now adjacent to smaller lots to the rear, he would question whether or not this would be a desirable neighborhood to reside in, and in all likelihood he would search elsewhere for a more desirable neighborhood. Commissioner Farano inquired as to the square footage of Mr. McMillan's home and was informed it was 2,700 square feet; that his home was considerably more valuable than the home proposed on subject property because of lathe and plaster construction and other additions. Commissioner Farano noted that he was attempting to ascertain from the opposition their specific opposition so that the Commission would have all data presented in order to make the proper decision for both the single-family homeowners in the area and the petitioner, as well; that many of the single-family homeowners adjoining properties ~vhich were asking for R-2-5000 had expressed apprehension on the types of homes proposed - therefore he }~ad made a personal visit to see the homes in the west Anaheim area bei~g developed an 5000-square foot lots and noted they were everything the developer had claimed, -•ia tnat they were complimentary to the neighborhood. Mr. McMillan tr,.n noted that if the developer had purchased this land and developed standard 7200-square foot lots with larger homes, there would be many purchasers of these properties, and the developer was proposing to construct a$12,000 house on a~10,000 • lot, whereas if a$20,000 home were constructed on a$10,000 lot, they would sell much better. Commissioner Farano then inquired of Mr. McMillan whether the developer could build his home for the same price as he had ourchased the home five years ago; whereupon Mr. McMillan replied in the negative. Commissioner Farano then noted that the crux of the entire problem was opposition to permitting development on the land which would be detrimental to the ad~oining properties. Mr. McMillan noted that the homes constructed on the east side of Sunkist Street southerly of Paladin were sold for between $36,000 ar.d $39,000 and the square footage of these homes was between 1800 and 2200 square feet - these were very high quality, well developed ~~~ . -~- : : . .. '~~, ~_. . - , ,",;.' ' ~~E h " l r . °j~'''~ ~ ~,T„ y :~ ~ t ~ ,.~~' R g ~,;. r ur df: ~ ~ ~ ~u S ~ .~-w: ,0 r - i ., : S~ ~ r~ w~El ,~,.' ~ „,4 ? r ~ ~ ~Tr+t ~ ~MF y~~ zi~„~~ i~~,.'~~ ~~ 1 .. . x - ~ z _ y!~ l . k ti~ ..q~, a.a,; . ~ ~ . . . .. . t ..~,I ~ ~ `~% MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 2, 1968 4250 ~~ GENERAL PLAN - homes, and the entire area was ver '~ AMENDMENT N0. 96 as it re resented the hi her Y Proud of this new development ~;~ (READVERTISED) P 9 qualities of the community; that the t„~ City and the neighborhoods built their images by purchasing more expensive:homes, and most of the development in this area were homes ~, RECLASSIFICATION ranging in price from $30,000 to $40,000 - therefore, the injection ~i N0. 68-69-47 of smallar hames in an area established with primarily 7200-square :~ foot lrits would depreciate the value of all of these homes. '~ VARIANCE N0. 2031 The Commission then inquired whether any opposition would be expressed ~'_~~ TENTAI'IVE MAP OF if 720f}-square foot lots were abutting the R-1 lots already developed ~~ TRACT N0. 6809 with 7200 square feet, and the balance of the property developed with ~ (Continued) the smaller lots. ~:7'~;i ~. ,~ ~ Mr. McMillan noted .+.hat.regardless of what was proposed for the periphery of the property, ~ the smaller lots would have an adverse effect on the entire neighborhood; therefore, he k-~ requested that the Commission consider 7200-square foot lots for th~s ~ntire area, thereby ,;j denying the request for R-2-5000 by the petitioner. ~.; ~' _ :ti ~,, ~ Mr. Don Whitin9, 2126 East Vermont Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition, ~ noting that his property was the last home on Vermont Street abutting subject property ,; ' 1 and inquired what plans were being made for the extension of Vermont Street through '~ r subject pro ext ;. ~>. . ; ~ P Y • ~ ~ Mr. Thompson advised the opposition that Vermont Street would stub into a north-south ~'~ ~:. ~~' street in the proposed development. ~~ ~ 2~ ~' Mr. Whiting then noted that in the presentation by Mr. Queyrel he had indicated the '~i 10-acre parcels abutting State College Boulevard would, in all likelihood, be developed ~ for co.nmercial or apartments, and in his opin3on this was not a valid argument to consider ~;...:,;;;~~~ R-2-5000 for sub~ect property. Mr. J. G. Partillo, 2413 Oshkosh Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated he was opposed to the increase in density which R-2-5000 would have as to school population; that South Junior High School in the past semester had to bus 150 students to Fremont Junior High School because of overcrowded conditions at South Junior High School; that nc, plans were projected for enlarging South Junior High School or the construction of a neW junior high school; and then inquired where would the additional students be placed with the approval of an increased density. The Commisszon directed the staff to answer the question; whereupon Mr. Krieger stated that as indicated by the figures in the General Plan amendment, ~hrough experience and surveys made periodically, the staff had determined ti~at single-family homes generated more children from kindergarten to the twelfth grade than multiple-family development when comparing a low density with low-medium and medium density - however, the increase would be considerably more notable if R-2-5000 were approved because this would mean an increase in the number of lots per acre, and cited, for example, an increase of 31 students in the kindergarten through sixth grades if subject property were approved for R-2-5000. The Commission then inquired whether the projections made on school populatio~ were based on specific areas or schools in general since no matter what was approved for subject property, with th.e overcrowded junior high school situation already existing, any development on these vacant parcels would just compound the existing problems. Mr. Krieger noted that the school districts were a different entity, although the staff alwayc tried to work with the school districtsin resolving their orojections for future schools. The Commission then noted that the statistics presented as to school population were on a general basis statewide, and not as to individual school sites. Mr. Partillo then stated that with the defeat of the school bonds twice by voters of the City of Anaheim, there was little likelihood any relief from the existing situation could be felt in the immediate future; h~wever, his basic complaint relative to schools was the fact that with the senior high school located on the south side of N'agner Avenue opposite subject property and the exits from the proposed development of 176 homes, this would mean a considerable increase in traffic flow, making both left and right hand turns into the street, especially between the hours of 7:3J and 8:00, and considerable traffic and pedestriar. hazards would be created if the increase in density were approved. Further- more, this would also mean that only one exit was proposFd to Wagner Avenue and one to Vermont Avenue; with an additional overflow of traffic in`•o Oshkosh Avenue, creating an overload for this area which would be insurmountable and would mean the possibility of automobiles waiting up to fifteen minutes to gain access to Wagner Avenue to make a left hand turn. ~ ~~ / ~ + MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 2, 1968 4251 GENERAL PLAN - Mr. Fred Colgrave, 1049 Reseda Street, appeared before the Commission AMENDMENT N0. 96 in oppositian and noted there was no evidence submitted or a (READVERTISED) logical reason for permitting homes of the size requested under.the variance; that he was opposed to smaller homes on the same basis RECLASSIFICAI'ION that he did not like low-priced furniture; that he had purchased N0. 68-69-47 his property on the assumption that State College Boulevard was the boundary for smaller homes; that his home was constructed on a'7200- VARIANCE N0. 2031 square foot lot with 2100 square feet of floor area, and the proposed tract homes would not be consistent with those in the area, nor would TENTATIVE MAP OF they be compatible; and that although the developer indicated people TRACT N0. 6809 were not desirous of having lar9e lots, there were many people who (Continued) were still intesested in larger homes and lots - therefo~=, the petitioner should find property west of State College Boulevard to develop with smaller lots and smaller homes. Mr. James DeMille, 2234 Lizbeth Court, appeared before the Commission in opposition and noted his property abutted subject property to the east in the Malborough tract of homes which were sold in the vicinity of $22,000 to $25,000 several years ago, with all of the homes in this area having a 1600 to 1700-squara foot floor space, shake roof and w~.th considerable improvements to his property, the valuation of his property had reached $30,000 - therefore, any homes proposed for subject property should be comparable in size and quality; and that he wished to reiterate previous statements made regarding the traffic problem, especially with streets exiting into Wagner Avenue directly across from Katella High School. Mr. Queyrel, in rebuttal, noted that the tract to the west of sub~ect property was developed thirteen to fourteen years ago at a selling price of $13,000, and the valuation of these homes was now approximately $23,000; that the proposed homes would be of higher quality, but he could not assure the property owners to the north and east that the same quality homes would be abutting their homes; that the developer of the single-family homes immediaiely to the north had developed high quality homes - however, he was unable to obtain a return on which he could assume a profit, and as a r.esult, had a considerable loss which he cou;d not absorb. Mr. Queyrel noted that the reason for pointing out these facts was because he felt it was important; that tne 2700-square foot house did not abut subject property; that the property adjacent to State College Boulevard was not conducive for development for R-1 - however, R-3 or commerci.al might be considered. A woman in the audience noted that Mr. Queyrel had made comparison of the homes thirteen years ago, and the proposed homes could be judged on the same basis, and inquired why this comparison was rt:ade. Mr. Queyrel noted that homes that cost $20,000 to build one year ago had already increased in cost price by $3,000. Mrs.Biester again appeared before the Commission and noted she had attempted to find a i200-square foot home under $30;000, but she was unable to find one in a worthwhile area in the City. ~ The Commission then noted that the discussion was more in the line of costs, whereas the Commission was required to consider whether or not the request was an appropriate land use, and the many questions presented by the Commission was an attempt to determine whether there was a land use change or a change in the character of the area to warrant favorable consideration of a change in density, and then requested that the petitioners indicate the manner or character of change which would justify favorable consideration of subject petition. - Mr. Queyrel noted that the General Plan amendment general boundaries considered an area in which a significant change had taken place in the past - where 5000-square foot lots were approved northerly of Ball Road and Sunkist Street, and this was the basis on which the proposed request was made. 1'he Commission noted that a high school and a park separatedsubject property from the R-2-5000 approved south of the school site; that an arterial was located along its east boundary, and circumstances were not the same for subject property as for the other property. Mr. Queyrel noted that subject property was in the area of the tract previously approved for R-2-5000; that the previous petitionsfor the establishment of a tra~ler park were not appropriate for subject property; and that future zoning requests might not present as compatible plans as proposed by the developer. Furthermore, the property might be vacant for several yezrs. . ~t.'~.'y 2 7 ~ f ~ •J • G ~^ •it ~i ,y1~ ~ ~ -`~ - ~.~~ ~ N~~ ~ ~J ~ ;~~ ~ fl ~ ~ ~~,; ,, . , ~ .. , , , , ;, . , ~ ~ _ .n`i. „_. _ ~ s'~ ~A~:k^i1~~~~"kR~-qa' {~ ^~•"q'cx$1~~ f'~"'c .: f r~~~~~~ ~~'aeh~FM1~ ~j ~'4't~-\. CL ~s E t p,i ' f ~.j 7 ~ . . ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~. ~. ~ ~ . . . ~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 2, 1968 42g2 GENERAL PLAN - The Commission noted that although there might be some similarity AMENDMENT N0. 96 in circumstances, the surroundings of subject property were entirely (READVERTISED) different, and the same reasoning for approving the R-2-5000 north of Ball Road could not be applied to subject property because the RECLASSIFICA7ION property was located in the center of residential areas, with N0. 68-69-47 complementary schools and parks surrounding it. Furthermore, no substantiaT evidence was presented to warrant consideration of the VARIANCE N0. 2031 variance, permitting 75% of the lots to be constructed with homes of 1252 square feet, and since the Commission must state the necessary TENTATIVE MAP OF findings to substantiate their reasons for approval, the petitioner TRACT N0. 6809 was required to ~ubmit additional evidence. (Continued) Mr.. Queyrel noted that many older families war.ted smaller homes, and the smaller homes they had had in the past had been sold to older couples who want to retire into an R-1 environment but felt they did not want the work entailed with larger homes, and it was his opinion that approval of R-1 sh.uuld be tied to architectural design. The Commission then inquired whether from previous experience in developing smaller homes the developer had evidence that 75% of the requests were from these •retired, older people and homes~would be sold primarily to older people. Mr. McMichael noted that of the 75% proposed to be constructed belaw the minimum 1525 square feet, 40% were just below that minimum, and some of the homes oroposed were two- bedroom; however, in the past when zoning for R-2-5000 was requested, they had had no restrictions on the basis that the other areas were permitted to have 1225 square feet - however, the average they had built were up to I500 square feet andtwo-story homes; that they had attempted to have well designed, architecturally compatible homes with 1400 square feet and shake roofs which cost $1,000 more than composi:ion roofs; and that he could build a 1525-square foot home with composition roof,without special appliances, which could be considered "ding-bat", rather than those he was proposing. Mr. Queyrel noted that a21 the hort~s in this proposed tract would be single-story, and if 7200-square foot lots were req~ired, these could be two-story construction. A question from the audience relative to the number of homes 2ost if 6000-square foot lots were approved - after a calculation, it was determined that approximately thirteen homes would be lost. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission and it was determined the area had not changed to warrant any heavier density for this area; that the petitioner and developer would be enjoying a right which adjoining property owners did not enjoy when they built their homes, except the single-family homes to the west which had been constructed on 6000- square foot lots, and if homes were built adjacent to these 6000-square foot lots, then perhaps the petitioner might have justification for waiver of the square footage adjacent to the westerly property; however, anything to the north and east should be developed for 7200-square foot lots. Furthermore, the statement made by the representative of the petitioner that R-A parcels fronting along State College Boulevard might remain vacant for a number of years - until a request is made for use of the property, the designa- tion of low density for this area would remain in effect since there already existed 6000-square foot lots northerly and southerly of these ten-acre parcels. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-355 and moved for its passaqe and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amend- ment No. 96 readvertised be disapproved on the basis that no land use change had taken place to warrant consideration of a higher density for the area. (See Resolution Book) On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONER&: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-356 and moved for its passage and adop- tion, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to recommend to the City Council that PPtition ' for Reclassification No. 68-69-47 be disapproved on the hasis that the proposed density would be detrimental to the existing low density residential development in the area, and that no land use change had taken place to warrant consideration ~f a heavier density than presently existed. (See Resolution Book) i ~, '~~: - ~` r.~ -~..~~,;. ;. . ...f . ., , _ ~~ _ i ' .'."~. . ~ ,.. _ , .. ,_ . `. . ._ _ r x y, ' 4 ~ ~ ~{ ~ ~. $v '~ "Fi ~ -~ t~y ti ~:~'4",.w- +'94~~..~..~+xS ~ frxt 4~ l' r i ~ t ` r~~~ q a t1~ t, C} .r h 9 ~ p .d1 ~+ r f~ ~~<ixr x.;~' ~n s'~c.Y".~+ an,~ a~S. - r. • J~ .`'~,'r x . o- 3 5 ~ . .. ~. . . ~ .. ~ . ~ Y MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 2, 1968 '~'~ _ 4253 , ' .,~~~, GENERAL PLAN - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote ~, AMENDMENT NO. 96 ~READVERTISED) AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall `"'r NOHS: COMMISSIONERS: None. + ° ` RECLASSIFICATION ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. '~y~ N0. '68-69-47 Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-357 and ma~;ed fo;.• its y VARIANCE N0. 2031 passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to deny ,~;•xs Petition for Variance No. 2031 on thp basis that no evidence waa «~~ TENTATIVE MAP OF submitted to warrant consideration of a reduction in the minimum ~ TRACT N0. 6809 livable floor space in en area which.had been developed with homes ~~~ (Continued) with considerably more than the minimum 1525 square feet. (See ~~~~ Resolation Book) .:;. ~ ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. ' NOHS: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. i Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. 6809 on the basis ,I that the requested zoning was also recommended for denial; therefore, the proposed sub- ' division could not be effected. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. I ~ ! GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INCENTIVE AID FOUNDATION, c~o Marshall McDaniels, ~ AMENDMENT N0. 91 3350 Wilshire Boulevard, Room 310, Los Angeles, California, Owner; (READVERTISED) ANN MADISON, 600 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; ~ property described as: Two parcels of land comprising a total of ~ RECLASSIFICATION approximately 32.8 acres located generally north and east of East NO•. 68-69-49 Street and Ball Road, and further described as Patcel No. 1- An "L" shaped parcel of approximately 21.4 acres, having a frontage of TENTATIVE MpP OF approximately 490 feet on the east side of cast StreEt and a maximum TRACT NOS."6812, depth of approximately 1,300 feet, the s~utherly boundary of said 6824 AND 6825 parcel being approximately 300 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road, and Parcel No. 2- An irregularly shaped parcel of approximately d 11.4 acres, having a frontage of approximately 969 feet on the east ~ side of:East Street and a maximum depth of approximetely 871 fee*., the southerly boundary of said parcel being a~+groximately 200 feet ~ north of'the centerline of Bai1 Road. Property pre~,entLy .,assified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 91 - A review of present land use policies and possibla a:~end- , ment from low density residential and general industrial ~ to low-medium, medium density residential and general industrial within the general area defined a. west of State College Boulevard, north of Ball Road, Past o* tasc Street and south of Vermont Avenue. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY,.ZONE (PARCEL N0. 1) AND R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ 20NE (PARCEL N0. 2) TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: C. MICHAEL, INC., 8501 Bolsa Avenue, Midway City, California. ENGINEER: Raab 8, Boyer Engineering Company, 14482 Beach Boulevard, rvite Z, Westminster, California. Tract No. 6812, comprised of approximately 21.4 acres, proposes subdivision into 115 R-2-5000 zoned lots. Tract No. 6824, comprised of approximately 11.4 acres, proposes subdivision into one R-3 zoned lot. Tract No. 6825, comprised of approximately 7.2 acres, proposes subdivision into 10 M-1 zoned lots. Associate Planner Marvin Krieger reviewed General Plan Amendment No. 91 readvertised (copy on file in the office of the Development Services Department), noting that Exhibits "A", "H° and "C° were posted on the west wall, ad~acent to the area involved on the General Plan; that Exhibits "A° and "B" had been reviewed in July of 1967 - however, the Planning Commission at that time had recommended disapproval, and the City Council by motion also disapproved; therefore, Exhibit "C", alsn gosted ad3ace nt to the General Plan, indicated industrial uses along the north side of Ball F:oad with a transitional medium density residential area immediately northeri,y of the industrial designation and transi- tioning into low-mediom residential for the remainder of the vacant acreage between East Street and State College Boulevard. Furthermore, as per Exhibit "C", the school age V,1 ";'1 ~, ~ ~:~J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 2, 1968 !F"~' r~~ :~F` {tts:yt.~ ,jcrr" `.~F,,~. .~_ ~ ._- ----- ---~ _.___ _~ , 4254 GENERqL P?.AN - population additions would be: yracies Y. 5- 60; grades 7-~ - 26; AMENuidEN'I' N0. 91 and grades 10-12 - 25; that there ~;uct,ld h~ ~~ utilities, `parks, or ~READVERTISED) traffic implications if Exhibi.~t ",.;" ut~c6 aGpsoved; and that in light of the reviewed o.bjectives and ri:i,~r.iEala.e of the Generel Plan and RECLASSIFICATION existing Gener:3 Plan sy~~boior,y ar:~ ~.a rnz uses, the Commission might N0. 68-69-49 w~sh to con~ider recammendinh r,a the ^Yty Council che exhibit which re`lected their beliefs c~n~:p~r..ing the future land use dp~velopment TENTATIVE MAP OF :,n 4his area. TRACT NOS. 6812, 6824 AND 6825 Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pai :3rawn reviewe@ ^the recla~s4.iication (Cont3nued) and tentative trac~ requests, nating that subject properi,y ;.onsisLe;~ of approx.imately 4q acres and was located at the northeast corr,ar of Ball Road a rri East Street, rrxtending nor'.herly to the low density residential uses already establisherl, anci e?s?~. ,,e the single~~family i~c:i~s unde_ construc- tion; that the tracts were subdividad into the sF~ecific zoning p~apc~sed :or the properiy under consideratior~; that no precise plans of de•velopment had been submitted for either the R-3 portion or the M-1 portior,; that the Ccrr,~mission might wish to note there was one significant difference between the subject ~ro~osal and tho,e pro;oez•ties develr~ping to the ea~t - namely, that the R-3 portion of the prop~erty to the east extended ccmpletely between the industrial r.,;,~d land and ±:;z sing'le-family tract to the nor'th, wheieas in subject proposal the R-3 ~rcel had ~tiFr, indi,ated for the southweFt portion of t,he property and did not extend t~rough to tne easterly boundary, and, therefore, a portion of the proposed R-2-5000 tract would immed:tately abut the industrial property iocated to the ::~uth; and Lhat the Commission woulc` h~!ve to determine whether the proposed lar:d use would provide an acceptable land use tran~ition and conform to the 4oolicy set forth in General Plan Amendment No. 91. Furthermr,re, it should be noted that the majority oi~ tne proposed lots in the R-2-5000 tract had 60-foot widths and approximately 5400 square foot areas - this compared favorably with ~he R-1 trsct c.: the nor~'r! ss ~vell as the 60-faot widths and lot areas varying from 6000 square feet and up of the ;~ewer tract tn the east. Mrs. Ann Madison, agent for the patitioner, appeared before the Coi~;~ission and noted. that the prooose~5 reclassification would be in keeping with the lan4 ~ases established north and eas•;: of cast Street; tliat thc developer realized the integrity of ~he M-1 must be meintaine~i - therefore h.e prnposgd ..4 M-1 lots; that there w~;re 22 single-fa~nily lots abutting the M-1 zoned proF~erty, bu~t bf.~caase of the size and shaps of the M-1 lots, this would pre lu;tc any `~eary indus•tria3 uaes ~;stablishing immediately adjat.ent to the single-family ~~~;_s9 that ihe proposeril layc~ut was the best possibl.e the engineer ar.d deveLoper co:,:lcl design without having a similar, narrow R-3 parcel as was existin,e, to the east; tt,at the proposed uss of ~he property would be compatiblA with the surroundiitg land uses, and th= stz~eet.design was planned to c~orrelate with the existing stse~t p~ac as depicted on the General Plan. No one appeared in opposition to tiubject petitions. Commissioner Herbst notad that it wav his opinion and his objection ~hat to consider developing single-fair,i,ly homes immeciiately adjacent to M-1 was not good ;olanning and would create problems i,n t'~e future, reo~rdless of the M-1 usas which mi~ht be developed there; that although a 6-foot masonry wail might be p:oposed adjacent to the M-1, ~;ae hei.ght oi a wall wou~d r~~+. muff~e th~ noises or vibrations from any type of an operation, especiai3y if the i~~dustria.l use were operaCEd 24 hours a day; that sir~ilar complaints had aean rece=v :; on existing inr]ustrial uses adjacen+, to single-famil,y homes - one being a truck concern with hours of or~eration between 6:00 A.h1. and midnight; that al~hough the e~~=~?n9 industrial develop;,,e„t adjacent to the single-fa~nily homes was one of the light- est type af industrial uses which might be compatible, there was no reason to assume thz~ this industry would relocate and a less compat;~+1e use would be established on the property; that the in^lustry could relocate, but when homeownsrs purchased their liomes, ±he~~ were less likei; to move than where pro~ertie~ were abutie~~ with apartments, and if the nc=ees ~rom an inou~try b~cace unbearable, +.ne apartm~nt dwellers could re- locate; and that i;:uwas his apinion thp de~celopers were building into the project an ir,surmountable problem. Mr. Hal Raab, engineex for the develaper, appeared before the Commission and concurred that there might p~esibly b~ a con.flict of land uses, and the single-family homes would not be compatible with the M-1 - however, ~his wo~ld affect only six lots, whereas R-3 wou~d be affecti.ng 20 unics. Conrais~~oner Herbst not:ed that since he was an owner of industry and he had attended many public hearings, he ~ad first-hand knowl~dge of the incompatibility of single- family residential uses with 'ndustrial uses, and since the Sargent Company had been located at this particular 1~~;ation for several years, they should be afforded some type of consideration when a:and use change was taking p1acE immediately adjacent to them. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~'xr=~'' [ '°.~. t,~,~. *a`~ ~ ~ .~,~.,.a `„ r:;y",>:.'•~~-.ro~.,r...';:.»aa.i..., ;'7~. , ~~ . ~ ~ - ~ ~~' . ., _. ~ . ... . . . . ~ wtill . ... , , ~ . _ , .. ~:' ~' . ; . ' ---=-- „ .., ,, ~ ~. . . . J MINUTES CII'Y PLAN C~ ~ NING COMMI I `J: , .~ " , SS ON, December 2, 1968 . ~" 4255 , GENERAL PLpN AMENDMENT N0. 91 - The Commmssion determined that Exhibit "C" of General P1an Amendment No. 91 readvertised n ,~ ~+ (READVERTISED) represe ted a better transition from the M-1 to the low density residential r , uses no therly of subject property; however, the'.reclassification and tract '~ RECLASSIFICATION N0 ti8-69-49 maps should be continued in order to readvertise the ro ert aries more ih keeping with p ng : the desi nation o£ the General Plan thereb g ~ y offering a buffer between the"single-family home r n ~~ ~~ TENTATIVE MpP OF s p oposed i the R-2-5000 tract and the M-1 pzoperty already developed adjacent to b 7R,OCT, NOS. 6812, su ject property. 6824 At; 58 5 _~._ (Cont ..ed) _ Commissioner Mun9a11 offered Resolution No..PC68-358 and moved for its passage,and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to ~ recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No 91 ~ t.ransitioning from . readvertised, EXhibit "C",represents the most logical method of industrial to low density uses d , an recommended this be approved. (See [tesolution Book) „ On :oll cell the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: Al'ES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. N~~~ COMMISSIONERS: None. ~BSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. Further discussion was held by the Commission,~the developer and the engineer relative to the submission of revispo legal description and tentative tract maps to have the industrial and R-3 portionsmore nearly conform with the Exhibit "C" just approved under Genexal Plan Amendment No. 91. Mr. Raab ~then agreed to a two-:veek c~ntinuance, stating that he would submit a revised tract map no later than Wednesday in order that the property might be readvertis~ed. Commissioner Camp ~ffered a motion ~o re~pen the hearing on Reclassification No. 68-69-49 and continue public hearing to the meetin~ of Uecember 16, 1968, in order to allow time for readvertising of the pr~perty, incorpcrating the boundaries of the M-1 R-3 and R-2-5000 in accordance with Exhibit "C" appsoved for General Plan Amendment No. 91, and that Tentative Map of T.ract Nos. 6812, 6824 and 6825 also be considered at said meeting since the engineer for.the develope•r had agreed'to said continua'nce. Commissioner Herbst s~conded-the motion." MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNl~IENT - There being no further business to diccuss, Commissioner Cemp offered a motinr, ~o adjourn the me~>ting. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARR?ED. The meetir,ey adjourned at 9:~5 ~,M. Respc•ctfuliy submittea, ~ /~/L~Y.J _1/~~~ / ' ANN ~RE~S, Secretary ' Anaheim City Planning Cominission , ~;~~,~;, ~~ .~~ ~ - - , : ~.~..-~~~ , _' ., ~ 'a ~ ~ _ . __,,, ~ _. , ~. .. . ~ ! . `~ _