Loading...
Minutes-PC 1969/09/08~` !`1' ~';. ( ~~~~t ~ ~ - `~ ~: ~ ~ ' _ ~,.;, r • ~- '~ " ! ~ ~ r:r:::.;~..,..~... y ~ L.r Citq Hall Anaheim, California September 8, 1964 A REGULAR MEETING Or THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON r", REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission wae called to order by Chairman Rowland at 2:00 o'clock P,.f., a quorum being ~ '` present. s: ~''" PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Rowland. ~4i~'~.~','S ~~~ ~' - COP~SISSIONERS; Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbat, Thom. ~`~~° ABSENT ~ COD4IISSIONERS: Farano. ~ ~?' PRESENT - Assiatant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson f~ Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry ~ Office Engineer: Jay Titus Asaistant Zoning Supervisor: Pat Brown r,: Planning Commiasion Secretary; Ann Kreba PLEDGE OF ~ ALLEGIANCE - Co~isaioner Gauer led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. x t~: ` `• APPROVAL OF - Commisaioner Thom offered a motion to approve the Minutes of the ~ THE MINUTES meetiag of August 25, 1969, as submitted, seconded by Commissioner Camp, and MOTION CARRIED. ,; w 1 ~I i CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, c/o Elden ~rz:.-:.;;,,"~ PERMIT N0. 1125 McPharlin, 1710 Crocker Citizens Plaza, 611 Weat 6th Street, Los S~ Angelea, Califomia, Owner; TERRACE GARDEnS, c/o Fox Realty, 1405 ~ ~ East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California., Agent; requesting permission ,r,, ,~ to ESTABLISH A CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL WITH ADJOINING "COTTAGE TYPE" MINIMUM CARE UNITS n ~~ on property described as: An irregularly ahaped parcel of land located on the south ti 4j aide of Frontera Street with a fronta e of a ~ -~ depth of 413 feet and being approximately 2,260~feetteast3of thetcenterlinepofXRiotVista ~ Street. Pro ert p y presently classified R-A, AGRICtTLTURAL, ZONE. ` k, ~'; Subject petition was continued from the meeting of July 28, 1969, to allow time for the r~ ataff to atudy possible amendmenta to Title 17 as it pertained to the location of dwell- ~~~ ing units and streets from oil wells, and for the ataff to explore alternative meana of ' development of aubject property with the petitionera. ~ Asaiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses `~ established in close raximit p y, reasona for continuance of aub~ect petition, and the '. proposal to develop a 188-bed convalescent hoapital with adjoining minimum care cottages A on aubject property. :X: i r : * Mr. Brown noted that aince the proposed east-weat street required under Area Development ?' Plan No. 97 had been slightly modified, the develo er had redeai P gned the project and was r now propoaing a main atructure of approximately 20,000 aquare feet, with additional , future ca:e unita totaling anothe~ 20,000 square feet; that all site development etandards ~i had been met, including landacaping, setbacka, parking, etc.; and that the basic differ- "~ ence between the original concept and the new one was tlie fact that 29 extra parking spacea ~~ were no longer provided; howeve~ thia could be partially replaced by utilizing tt~e tri- ~ ~ angular parcel south of the east-west street for either gueat or a¢ployee parking. ' ~,,;;,,; Therefore, the prime consideration before tbe Commisaion was the appropriateness of ! r,` ~'~~' land use based on the fact that oil wells and atorage taaks were located throughout ~ this area, ~ "' ~ i ,~ti"r,µ~' The spe¢ial atudy regarding the location of dwelling units and streets near oil wells ~ ~ ~ was thea reviewed by Mr. Brown, who noted that Title 17 and Title 18 covering the oil ~~f,:,` code, according to repreaentativea of the oil industry, need not be revised becau~se of ~ : the controlled flexibility written into the code which allowed the City Managar permis- .,;~' sion to grant a 25% deviation ia certain requirements, or direct request to tke City ~ Council for relief or through the filing of a variance. >s 4794 ~ :s1 I + ~ ~ ~. .r,.. ~ ~:~ . .. ., , .. . , H"~,- P"~~.~ .~ `rtt -a ~r~u~ e- '~i?~" ~/ 5 l i ~~+° ~ f ,+ ' r ?? ": r . . ~ 4 ~ ~ ~-'_ ~ ~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 8, 1~69 4795 :,::,_;.. ,.= CONDITIONAL USE - Mr, George Schriber, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared PERMIT NO_ 1125 before the Comm3ssion, noting he wae aleo representing the operatora of (Continued) the project; that all difficulties had been reaolved regarding the street ~ , alignment, and the revised plans aubniittad rePTerted these changes; that a contemporary,.modern structure aimilar in design to that on the ~ ,+ brochure submitted with the petition was propos~d~ aaid atrccture being located in Wichita, - Kansas; that the plan had been slightly change~d in order to meet the State of California and City of Anaheim requirements; and that he would be ava~lable to answer any questions. A letter of oppoeition was received and read to tha Gommiasion from the Atlsa~tic Oil ~.z~_;~._ : Company, lesaees and operators of the oil wells across from aubject property in which it ~r"`'"~~ was atated that there wae a poaeibility of 24-hour~a-da `;;' y aperations at such time as re- ..rx,."~ drilling of the exiating wells was required~ which thay felt would not be conducive to patienta of a convaleacent home (copy on file). :i ~^~`-, y~ Mr. Schriber, in rebuttal, atated that the noisea from the oil wells now operating were ~ not as much as the noiaea from the Riverside Freeway; that there would be no problem as ~ ;; to any redrilliag suggeated when it was necessary for a few weeks aince both the dining area and kitchen were located to the south, neareat the wells, and moet of the rooms were inaulated againat outaide noiaes, :: Mr. Schriber, in response to Commission questioning regarding construction of two ra~ms within 180 feet of the wells, atated that with the interpretation made by the staff regarding waiver of up to 25% deviation from that required, thie would accomplish the _ , r~ s ame a y.. , nd the rooms would not be removed. ;,;:; : Mr. Brown then noted that the findinga in the Report to the Commisaion relative to a special atudy the Coa~isaion had requested on provisions of Titl•es 17 anri 18 regarding dwelling unita and streeta in the oil diatrict, according to these findings, this would permit the two rooma under diacusaion to be located lesa than the required 180 feet from the wells. ; ~~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ' : -<r~ ~ ~t ~ Commisaioner Herbst offered Reaolution No. PC69-179 and moved for ita passage and adop- .~ tion, to grant Petition for Conditional Uae Permit No. 1125, aubject to conditions. ~° ~'~ Co~isaioner Thom requeated that aince subject property was in an undeveloped area, ' that underground utilities ahou7,d be an added condition of approval, to whioh Commissioner `~~'... ~~ Herbat acceded. (See Reaolution Book) ~ ''i ' Mr. Schriber advised the Commiesion that since the plane of development indicated under- ,r; ground facilitiea, he would stipulate to thia requirement. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbet, Thom~ Rowland. NOES: COMIIISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ~`~,~ VARZANCE N0. 2113 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM AND NINA SIMMONS, 903 South Agate ~ Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; 1AMES HODGES, 903 South Agate t Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; reqnesting WAIVERS OF (1) ONE- ~ STORY HEIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF AN R-A ZONE~ (2) MINIMUM SIDE XARD SETBACK, (3 MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, (4) LIVING UNITS WITHIN 200 FEET OF A STANDARD ~.~ ` STREET, AND (5) ADEQUATE ACCESS FOR TRASH COLLECTION AND FIRE VEHICLES, TO ERECT A ' ,; 54-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX on property dascribed as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of ~ land having a frontage of approximately 297 feet on the west side of Webster Street and r i a maximum depth of approximately 299 feet, being located approximately 500 feet south ~t of the centerline of Orange Avenue, and further deaczibed as 639 South Webater Street. ~,~~,,,`;^.; Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE (reaolution of intent to R-3 ~,;.;::,.;>°:: Pending), Subject petition was continued from the meeting of August 25, 1969, in order to allow the designer to aubmit revised plans to the staff, providing for adequate fire and trash accesaibility aince the Co~aisaion did not wieh to act upon the requested waiver for this vehicular accesaibility based on the Assistant Fire Chief's feelings that the originally aubmitted plana did not provide adequata acceas. Assiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown revieued the location of eubject property, the exiating zoning, the fact that a resolution of intent to R-3 zoning was pending on the property, uaes eatabliahed in close proximity, the proposal for a 54-unit apartment ~ i~ `~~-:"~' ' ~ j r ~; rue- ~,'~ ~c ~r~~-'~rr»,~ +`S' :cd%S'"ars"~'t~:t `~u"`" ~:~e~i rre ,.. r ~ '~ ; I..s: ~^^ .,:, "~i I .~v'"~ '- ~ -----'-- - - ---`- ~ .. . - '-_...___... ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION; September 8, 1969 ~J 4?96 i i~ f~ VARIANCE N0. 2113 -.with five waivere, and the ReporC to the Cammission, noting chat (Continued) revisad plans had been submicted and analyzed by staff; that the original five waivers requested were atill needed, and the critical waiver for fire and trash accesaibility had not been resolved; that thc staff had met with the Fire Chief, and he indicated that opening the proposed struc- tures in the western portion of the property provided adequate fire accessibility in that area, however the 26-foot wide, depressed, north-south drive in the eas[ern portion of the property which stubbed to the south would be undesirable and inadequate since fire vehicles could not turn around in this drive; that acceasibility to che propoaed structures in the souther.ly portion of the property would be difficu~t and woLld require hand-hauling lines; and that the use of a peripheral drive would probably eliminate practiaally all of the accessibility problems presently existing on the pl~ns - there- fore, based on the foregoing statements, the evaluation of the staff indicated that redesign had not completely corrected the inadequacy of fire accessibility to the satis- faction of the Fire Department. Mr. James Hodges, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, nocing that the basic issue before the Co~ission was whether or not aubject propercy should be developed for 45 unita instead of the 54 as was proposed; that the staff was dedicated to reducing the density of development throughout the City and were doing their job - however, staiements made by some of the Commissioners, City Council and Mr, Orsborn relative to making better use of land, and the Pro3ect Century 21 Committee in their various conferences'and addresses to developer~ as well as crade magazines, emphasized this fact; that urban sprawl was upon us, and unleas the recommendations of the Century 21 Report were implemented, the undeairable results of urban sprawl would affect the City of Anaheim; that the only [hing the Commission and a builder could do to minimize this danger would be to work toward these recommendations by attempting to utilize land in the most efficient manner possible; that if a peripheral ~lrive were required, this would deprive nine families from having units in an area which r4a1 estate people and lending institutions fel~ was an excellent apartment area; that previously he had had conferences with the Fire Chief regarding the circulation on subjecC property, and nothing had been indicated that the easterly portion was undeairable; that a map he had posted on the wall indicated where a fire hose ceuld be pulled from the fire hydrant in the street on a straight haul fur 170 feet, ;ahereas the maximum length at which the fire hoses would be pulled was 250 feet; that if second-story and roof atructurea were to be served because of fires, the Fire Chief had indicated ladders would be adequate to take care of this; that on a straight pu11 of fire hoses there would be no difficulty - however, where fire hoses were required ta be pulled around corners, this would mean an extra man manning the hose at this corner; that he had opened up additional areas in the rear portion adjacent to the 54-feot wide cul-de-sac to asaist in serving the units to the rear of the property; tha[ it was his opinion the brown area on the plan posted should be two stories, and the property owners should have the right to develop this For two-story purpoaes - however, if a peripheral drive were required, this would eliminate the two- story structures and would create a hardship for the property owners; and that it was his further opinion the Fire Chief was satisfied with the reviaions made and with the adequacy of serving the easterly units as well as the southerly units. Commisaioner Gauer noted that the Report to the Commission indicated the east-west, depressed drive was considered inadequate by the Fire Department and wanted to know why this was not cor.sidered. Mr. Hodgea atated that it was not intended to be used for fire vehicle, access since fire hoses. could be drawn fc+r 200 feet from the fire hydrant and had been done in other areas. Commissioner Gauer noted that perhaps this was true - that it had worked in other areas - however, with the type of constiuction in most apa~etments, the length of time to get firehoses to the fire was of utmost importance withaut having the fire spread. Cotmnissioner Allred noted that he had resided in the City of Anaheim for more than twenty years and had been on the Planning Commission for some time; however, as he viewed the various developmenta which had been approved by the City in the past, he often wondered how the Commiasion, and that included himself, could have approved such undesirable developments with poor circulation; that in his opinion, the proposed development was not the most desirable meth~d of development,, and a better means of providing access for not only the fire and trash vehicles, but better access for the residents of the apartment development should be provided before he would consider subject petition favorably. Mr. Hodges, in reply, atated that it was his opinion there was no problem regarding accesa for the tenants because of the 54-foot turn-around area, and this was the first time the Commission had expressed concern relative to adequate circulation for the apartment reaidents. ~a '-, a;: , .; _. , ~' .. . . m _ . y .. ~ ~ r~ ,.: :, ~ ~~ - .~ ..,, _. . .' , . • .....~" _,.." _ 5 # ~• ... _. ,., . _ , . , r _. ~+~.~7~'k"i~F ra'"'~'i~9w .!~ 7 ~ '~s` ~bi r~ti `~i~~~' x~ +57T C ~ ~', ~ ~'~ { F f `~~;.' ~ r _ r : ~'.''T '-,' :;~i ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COIff~iISSION, September S, 1969 4797 VARIANCE N0, 2113 - Co~issioner Allred noted that the turn-around area had a badminton (Continued) court in the center, which would be hindering the fire fighters, Mr. Hodges replied that the Fire Chief had advised him that so long as the badminton conrt poles were removable, this would be acceptable to them - however, if the Commiasion were desirous, he would eliminate the badminton court; that there was no problem as to accese for each unit since each had a sepaxate entry hall and balaanies, Co~issioner Allred thet. atat:ed he was not oppoaed to the R-3 zoning as such, but was opposed to the proposed type of circulation, and that in his opinion, it was better to have a peripheral drive than the circnlation as proposed on the plana, or that a cul- de-sac street be provided through the center of the property. Mr. Hodges then presented pictures of ather developments which had peripheral drives, which also indicated that resident~ were parking in these drives rather than in the parking areas provided far them; that he was designing an apartment complex which would be before the C~amiesion on October 6, in which the property to the north had the peripheral drive, and it was extremely difficult to deaign around this particuiar peripheral drive. ~. Mr. Hodgea further noted that the Report to the Co~isaion had not indicated the density - propoaed for sub,jec[ property wae only 27 units per acre, and this was obtained because subterranean parking was proposedr opening up the area for additional unfts, and because ;.. of this difference in deeign~ consideration should be given to the petitioners regarding ~ this since this was the only means of permitting a density of 54 units for the site; ,: that cvery aspect of privacy, convenience, etc. was the utmoat in the minds of the ~, designer; and that fortunately he had never had the experience to revisit an apartment development whiah he had designed attd wonder why he had parmitted auch a development to be designed. ~ Co~iasioner Herbst requested that the staff review the discussion held bp them and t~he Fire Chief regarding the circulation. } ~ Mr. Brown stated that this circulation was discussed at the Interdepartmental Committee, rt' :1 ~ ~ and the Fire Chief was very much concerned about it and had made th~ statements as set -;:~ forth in the Report to the Commission. Commiasioner Camp expressed concern relative to the numerous statements made, noting that at the last public hearing when the plans were presented, the rire Chief had indicated that the units to the west should be opened up more - therefore, Mr. Hodges had made the statement he would do this; that the report now indicated the Fire Chief was requeating that the units to the south and east also be conaidered aince they were not providing adequate fire vehicle accessibility - there was also the problem that recom- mended corrections were being made on a piecemeal basis, creating conaiderable expenae to the developer and time to the designer, and he requested that some very concr~te statement be made by the Fire Chief as to whether or not the plans as presented to the Commiasion at thia hearing were acceptable or not and to indicate in detail all areas tnat were not acceptable in order to clear up this confusion of statementa made by the developer and the staff in the Report to the Commission. + ~- ' Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompaon advised the Co~ission that at th ~ e pre~ious public hearing, according to the Report to the Commission, the Fire Chief had i d ? „ ; n iraced that he cauld "live with" the circulation as proposed for the easterly ._ portior. - however, he did not feel it was as desirahle as a peripheral drive. n ':. Chairman RoWland inquired whether or not to the staff's knowledge was the proposed type of develo ment ad r *I p equaCe if one vehicle were parked in the wrong way - would this prevent adequate circulation aince thi d b h 8~::.. s a een approved in recent times? ~~ "; Mr. Thompson noted that the Co~ission had visited R-3 developments in the Magnolia ~,,,,,~. r~C - Avenue district in which the alley which provided the circulation was bloclced by a truck. ~r The Commission noted that this had happened prior to the time that the City's requirement for alle s h d b h ~ ~~ ~ y a een c anged to 20 feet. ~,, .,y$ Mr. Thompaon noted that since only an automobile was uaed, larger vehicles including ; `: , truclcs, would have great difficulty in maneuvering around. .: ,. -i;i;~`d Mr. Hodges, in response to Co~ission queationing, noted that the depressed drive between the two front buildings was to serve the underground parking, and then reviewed in detail for the Commission the manner in which the incline and decline of the 20-foot drive along the easterly portion wauld be utilized for both the subterranean parking end the carporta ~ along the north property line. ~r,r- -r . - ~. ~., ~;. i, n~ ~ , . _,. , . _. _ . .. . _ _ , . ~ '. ~~ ~ 'S ^~'Fx ~.: ~"`~' y~'y~x' t~c '.~% 1*MfiPC'+'q`4 "'~1h'1' ~4,-.:~"' ~i ~ ! t ~' f f ~ y ~ ~ r . ~~ ~Y 1l : F;/ i : ! } ."'r.^f -'~~ ~ ~ 1 •7 ~ 1 ~ q, y ~ ~ LJ ; . MINDTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION September 8 1969 +' , , 4~9g VARIANCE NG. 2113 - THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ; (Continued) Commissioner Thom noted that the Commission had sat through a similar ~ ~' discusaion at the previous public hearing, and the same items were again reiterated - however he could ~ , never vote for inadequate circulation for fire and trash vehicles, and thia was the whole aum and aubatance of th ~. °~ e request; that regardlesa of the number of queations the Co~isaion asked for clarification for circulation r- ` ~'~ ~ pu poses, no clear-cut anawer wae given, and the sum and aubatance of the isaue was still inadequate access for traeh and fire vehicles; that he had lived in many apartment de elo ment a d h d ~~ f v p s n a fouad many with built-in fire hazards; that at the last public hearing he had made a xr motion to approve sub~ect petition for all but~,,aiver of adequate fire and trash vehi l ~;; `'~: c e accssaibility - but the developer did not want to meet Code requirementa in th "~ ~, ";~~ e aense ae they were printed - therefore, the Coa~ieaion was again faced with th , e same problem, ~;; s " Co~isaioner Camp then noted that he was desirous of finding out what the Fire Departmeat ~. could live with and what they could aot live with; that if the differencea of opinion ' were any criteria as to the adequacy of fire and trash vehicle accessways, discuasion could go on indeterminably. .~ Commisaioner Herbat noted that the concern of the Commisaion ahould be the health and - ' safety of the reaideata, and aince the Fire Department must serve these residents, then perha s a etate e t f ~ ' p m n rom the Fire Department saqing that the propoaed development was ;_ r, . or was not adequate for them to serve ahould be submitted. , , - . . ' j Further diecusaion was heid by the Co~isaion and the staff regarding the acceasways ' and the requirementa of the Fire Department, and at ita conclusion, Co~issioner Allred off d , ere d motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Variance No. 2113 to th ~~ e meeting of September 22, 1969, in order to allow time to receive a written statement fro th i i ' " m e F re DepartmenC as to the adequacy of the circulation proposed and for the ~~ petitioner to provide additional trash etorage areas since the requirement was one trash ~ atorage area per twelve units, and only one was being proposed. Commiasioner Gauer . seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED, Commisaioner Herbst voting "no". ~t ~ ~ Chairman Rowland noted that a requeat had been received from the attorney for one of } ~ the iteme to have it heard prior to ita achedule on the agenda because of a previous N ~ commitment, and Ynquired whether the Commission were agreeabie to scheduling aad hearing P i a . ~ ,~. et tion for Conditional Use Permit No, 1133 at fhis time, ~ ~ ~ Counnissioner Thom offered a motion to conaider Conditional Us.e ,Permit No.1133 out of ~ ~ aequence. Commisaianer Herbet aeconded the motion. MOTION CARR,IED. , ~ `i ~ {i CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. JOHN AND ELTA STOWERS, P. 0. Box 247, Corona del Mar ~ , PERMIT N0. 1133 Califarnia, Owners; requesting permisaian to ESTABLISH A PAWN SHOP ~ ~~ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RETAIL SHOP on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land situated on C.he south aid f e o Lincoln Avenue, approximately 170 feet east of the centerline of Lemon Street ` , said parcel having approximately 25 feet of frontage and a depth of approximately 162 z feet, and further described as 162 West Lincoln Avenue. Proper~ty preaently clasaified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Aseietant Zoning Supervieor Pat Brown reviewed the location of aubject property, usea eatabliahed in cloae proximity, ,the proposai, and the fact that in January, 1967, a aimilar uae had been requeated by the petitioners, but wae denied by the Planning Cou~isaion and no action was taken bq the City Council; that the Commisaion's reasons for deny3ng said petition were thet the use would aet an undeairable precedent for aimilar uaea on Lincoln Avenue in cloae proximity; that the use might affect the xe- development of the downtown area in accordance with the recommendations of the Gruea Report; that redevelopment had occurred in the block in which aub,ject property was located; and that posaible resale of aub~ect property could introduce an undesirable element to the area. Mr. Brown noted that the Planning Commiaeion had approved a pawn shop operation on the weat eide of Anaheim Boulevard, south of Lincoln Avenue. Mr. Brown then reviewed the petitioner's requeat, noting that he was deairous to exerciae the uae of a pawnbroker's licenae in conjunction with the exiating retail buainesa at this location; that thia was basically the same requeat as made under Conditional Use Peanit No. 908; that at that public hearing a petition recommending deaial by~ the Planning Commieaion wae aigned bq 60 businessmen in [he i~ediate Lincoln Avenue area - however, at thia time the petitioner had aubmitted with his petition a petition signed by 92 buainesamen, 40 of whom had businesaea on Lincoln Avenue between Anaheim Boulevard and Clementine Street - therefore, it would be the Co~iaeion's prerogative to determine whether the atatus of the area in question had changed aufficiently in the past two and -r . _. - _ „ _ :~. - ~ ._ , .. . , a. _ a :~':^ 7~ ~y~,~~d`zR`~L :'~,..4b~t~ . ~ T.; ! k., r. ~ ~ ~ ~; 1 ;:gh ,;:.I~ .ar~1 rt:r '~-e5.1P''n yf ?tl ___"'_ ,_- __~..ti~ O ~' MT.NUTES, CITY PLANNING COI~fISSION, September 8, 1969 4799 CONDITIONAL USc - a half years to warrant favorable conaideration of subject petition. PERMIT NO.. 1133 (Continued) Mr. Odra Chandler, attorney repreaenting the petitionera, appeared before the Co~ission and noted the petitioners were not desirous of changing their preaent activity on the premises, but Mr. Stowers ~ deairous of establi.;hing a small loan buaineas on very select items; that a general ~.1wn shop wae not planned; that the people who were in dire need of immediate money for ~r;genciea would be able 'to have a reputab~e place of business iahere they could [ake ~~..iQti;z valuables to obtain this ready moneg;,'that this statement was based on the past ~¢erience of hfa own clients needing money to take care of their family needs pending ~~npport payments in divorce proceedings; thE~L the facility would be adequately controlled by police and would also aid the police in their recovery of atolen merchandise; and that the petitioner was willing to participate in any redevelopment program of the downtown area at such time as it occurred. Mr. Chandler also noted that the Co~ission could gxant the use for a period of two to three years, and upon its expiration the operation could bs reviewed to determine whether or not any detrimental effects had been observed, and that the petitioner did not intend to display the articlea which were pawned or have an undeairable display window, but would maintain a display window in the same manner as jewelers diaplay their wares. Mr. John St~wera, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and notEd that he was now operating a retail sales atore of old and antique guns and muaical instruments; that there would be no change ia the appearance of the existing atructure; that he was interested in eatabliahing hia buaineas in the Anaheim downtown area because he also owned the property and would be able to utilize hia pawnbroker's permit which would allow him to realize a return of his investment; that he had discuased this with business- mea in the area and had received their good wiahes since his businese had been establiahed; and that .~,~ of the buaineasmen who had previously ~?e ed a petition of opposition told him he d~:! not reaiize the type of buainesa he was proposing - however, if it was anything like that now in operation, he would not oppose it. The Commiasion inquired whether or not the petitioner intended to incorporate the aymbol of a pawnbroker in his present sign, `-! Mr. Stowers replied xhat he wasn't interested in encoura in g g "j~anlc type" business - ~f therefore, he would not change hia existing siga, and that the windasas t,~ould display J ~ only the higheat quality of inerchandise. - t ;~ Mr, Earl Kap1Rn, 1832 East Fairway Drive, prange, an employee o£ Huret .Tew.elers, 132 t Weffit Lincoln Avenue,~appeared before the Commisaion in opposition and nok2d fiie repre- { aented Mr. Joe Hurst s daughter, Mrs. Marie Freedman, now owner of the jewelrp atore, who was very much opposed to the establiahment of a pawn ahop on Lincoln Aveaue, just as her father had oppoaed it; that their company spent many thousands of dollar-s a ~ year in advertising both the jewr.?ry store and ahopping in downtown Anahefis th~ough the newspapers and radio; that he had worked in pawn eh~ops before and knew C.i~ere was no such thing as a good pawn ahop; that pawn shops basically dealt in the same ~nanner - accepting any t3+pe of inerchandise on which they would loan money; that more undesirable people could purchase jewelry in their atore on credit and go down the street to the pawn ahop and pawn it, resulting in their not being paid; that the atmosphere and clientele the pawn ahop attracted would be harmful to the buainesa establiahmenta on , Lincoln Avenue, and s3nce many were open on Friday nighta for business,becauae of this ; type of clientele which a pawn shop attracted, would result in an undesirable element which would disc~urage other ahoppera to the downtown area; that he was a native of Southern California and alwaps felt Orange County, and Anaheim in particular, was the ~ ~, hub of busineas, and it was his hope and desire to make the Anaheim downtown area the ~ ~ hub of the Cocnty in the very near future - however, the eatablishment of a pawn shop ~ would greatly discourage thia aince undesirable tiusinessea auch as bars and "honky-tonk" ~„ J type~of entertainment would be entering the downtown. Furthermore, there had been no ~^ ; chang~e in the entire area that was detrimental since the last petition had been denied F,-~ to warrant favorable consideration at this time. Mr. Kea Cotler, 118 West Lincoln Avenue, repreaenting the Cotler clothing store, appeared before the Commiasion in oppoaition and stated that since the last public hearing for a pawn ahop by the petitioner for subject property, the merchants of this block between Anaheim Boulevard and Lemon Street had been making many attempta to find a solution to the probl~us r'acing these merchanta; that they had improved the appear- ance of a number of the atorea in this block as a means of revitalizing the area; that the Gruen Report and plana would be an excellent manner for revitalization - however, thia would take time and money to implement; that the reason so much opposition is uaually expressed to a pawn shop in a downtown area was because it attracted other businessea looking for lower rental, which further deteriorated a developing area - however, if the area were retained for revitalizing, the rental asked wauld discourage ;:~: ~. . . y ^~.. ~. , '.. _ . .. _ ..` , . . v '- :n` _ ,a, ° i`;';'! ~ ~ r ` ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 8, 1969 4800 CONDITIONAL USE - them; that it would be unfair to the merchants in the area who had PERMIT NOe 1133 spent cansiderable money in modernizing their busineases Co permit _ (Continued) undesirable businesses to enter thia area; that the statement made by the petitioner that the windowa would be well maintained and no ~unk diaplayed would mean the City would have to make almoat daily inapectione to insure the windows were diaplaying only the best merchandiae; that he ;,-,; wasn't verq happy with the existing pawn shop on Anaheim Boulevard - therefore, the Co~iasion would have to decide whether approval of the proposed petition could set a pattern for aimilar requesta since approval of the proposed pawn ahop would mean any other requeats conld not be denied; and that there were more than enough problems in the City for the police to take care of without permitting a pawn shop on I,incoln `,,y; Avenue which would attract andesirable peraons to the area. ~~ Mr. Stanley Pawlowski, 127 West Lincoln Avenue, Vice President of Barclay's BankD appeared before the Commisaion in opposition and stated he was not primarily against pawn shops; that the one on Anaheim Boulevard was a reputable one, but he was concerned „ with the types of busineases this would encourage on Lincoln Avenue; that the b~sinesa- '~= men in thie block were now making a very determined effort to lift the area up in ita standarde, and approval of a pawn shop would again degrade it; that every effort had been made to maintain the block between Anaheim Boulevard and Lemon Street as a desir- ~ -~ able place for ahoppers to do their shopping; that when appraisers made appraisals of the property in the downtown axea, wherever a pawa ahop was located in the immediate ~; area, the value of pro~erCy was greatly reduced; that it was the dasire of his company +;;: to upgrade Che downtown area of Anaheim and retain the area for high level business, ~ but a pawn ahop did not qualify for that rating; and that two yeara ago when the busi- -~. r nessmen appeared in opposition before the Co~nisaion and City Council, the same argument Y was preaented - however, the City Council concurred with the opposition's presentation. ,i; Mr. J. D. Soto, repr~senting the Anaheim Savings & Loan Association located at the -~ northeast comer of Lemon Street and Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the Cammiseion in .~ oppoaition and atatEd he concarred in Che previoua statements made by the opposition; { , that he w.ished to stress the importance of property values being maintained and need for t ~ more police protection if a pawn shop were permitted; that his company was quite con- ~.3,,,.,.~ cerned with the future of the downtown area, and he did not want to see any further ; ~~ decline, and approval of a pawn shop would assiat in the decline of this area. Mr. Chandler, in rebuttal, stated that consideration should be given first to whether or not the proposed uae was a good land use for the area; that Anaheim's downtown area was no different than many other cities wherein decline had occurred; that the ilecline of the downtown area had continued even without a pawn shop; that both Mesars, Pawlowski and Sota rstt a qualified pawn service in that loana were made on the pledge of aome security, and the outward appearance of their busineas and its operators should not be a criteria to allow one businesa over another; that there were many property ownera and businessmen in the downtown area who were not willing to improve the area; that the petitioner had stipulated to participating in the redevelopment of the downtown area, such as was suggested by the Gruen Report; that the opposition was expressing fear of a poasibility, and if the businessmen could not eliminate the rundown appearance of the area, how would they feel the proposed use would harm them any more than all the bars now located downtown; that one of the savings and loan associations was now build- ing at Harbor Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue, the Bank of America was projecting a new building at Harbor Boulevard and Broadway, and the Wells Fargo Bank was also proposing to locate in that general area - this was indicative of further decline of the downtown area, with two important businessea leaving this area and re-establishing in a new area; and that he could understand the Hurat Jewelers being concerned because when Joe Hurst was alive, his great love was purchasing very expensive and beautiful jewelry from estates which were very valuable but were still not new merchandise, and he limited himself to that type of operation - therefore, thia small loan business proposed should in no way affect the downtown area. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Thom noted that he had been cloaely asaociated with the downtawn area for some time, and in hia opinion, a pawn shop would be undesirable and would set a prece- dent which would adversely affect the redevelopment now taking place in the downtown area. Commiasioner Thom offered Resolution No. PC69-180 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 1133 on the basis that no detrimental land use changes had taken place during the past two years in the downtown area, but had improved; that the proposed use would be a detriment to the redevelopment of the down- town area by opening the area for less than desirable business operations in the vacant stores on Lincoln Avenue. (See Resolution Book) ti~ .~~ :`"I w3 ~~i .;s?r ;~ :~ ~ - -- -- __ _ - __ ,~~~ "~ _ u _ ,:, - 1t Rr F~r ar `~ -~ ~ + g'' ~ ~ ._~., ., _ , , . .. . . . f ' . _~ .y,+~;r -M;+~ ~r~y ~r;n w-/, ; ~w r~ g ; ~ x ~ r s.yT i ~ r ~. ~.. t ~ ~ x , : 5 P „r ~Y _~..jry7xz i . . . . . '-"-':-_._. ----- . . ' , ~, 1. i: ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 8, 1969 4801 CONDITIONAL USE - Chairman Rowland asked for discussion by the Commiesion. PERMIT NO.. 1133 (Ccltinued) Commisaiqner Gauer stated it was not his desire to vote in favor of . :`. ~ a use that might hurt the downtown area; that he had always tried to vote for uses that would upgrade the area; that he was noc familiar with the operation of a pawn shop, but it was an urideairable surresnding •aith that type of business; that he had been a resident of Anaheim since 1925 and had many 1'~' friends in busineea through being an educator; and that since there seemed to be an atmoaphere of redevelopment occurring in the downtown area, he could not approve a use which could drastically affect the redevelopment and upgrading of the downtown area. ~ jr Commiasioner Herbst noted that in this particular instance this might be different due ,~,,~.;,,.~~ to the fact that the proposed operator of the pawn shop had already been in buainesa ,' at this location for the past two years; that he also owned the property; chat a big " atep in hia favor was evidenced because he had awung many of the downtown businessmen ~ who formerl were a ~ Y pposed to the use in his favor; that evidently his past performance ~~ 'ry~ was evidence he must be a good businessman, running a fairly clean shop; and that whez analyzing both the man and the proposed operation, perhaps the Commission might give ~'_ favorable caneideration to reco izin the 8n S posaibility of approval by granting~a time '. limitation of a apeciEic number of years, and aince this was a conditional use pErmit9 ~' making specific restrictiona. i; ' Co~niasioner Camp stated he was in agreement with Commissioners Thom and Gauer's :. r ; atatement that he did nut know that than operation such as that proposed would hurt h d , t e owntown area - however, he did knowthat it would not help the downtown area and 5 , in the downtown area witerever the City permitted development which would not help the area, it would be detrimental toward the goals which the City had set up and which the mercha~ta in that area had been trying to accomplish, and for that reason he did , not feel the uae was a proper one for subject property. I~ 1 Chairman Rowland noted that subject petition was a provisional land use permitted under a conditional use permit; that a conditional uae pexmit empowered the Commission Lo ' ~ approve a use subject to a time limitation as suggested by Mr, Chandler and at the -,;; . <;;•;~ ' , expiration of said time limitation a review could be made to determine the effecte of t ~j the use. However, he did not have as much faith in that as in the legal power to do ~~ it becauae there were several thriving buaineases in the downtown area which nobody ;; ' in the Citp liked - particularly the movie houae located juat a few doors east of the ` ~ City Hall and the other located almost next door to it - yet he did not know of anyone r preaent in the Council Chamber or in the City who would have any capability of closing ' the operations. Therefore, even though the petitioner was a fine merchant and a respected additioa to the community, a conditional use permit went with the land not ~ : , with the peraon - therefore, the Commission should make their deliberations in those :, terme. c .~ ~ Upon roll call the foregoing reaolution was pasaed by the following vote: ,. ,,: : . AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Thom, Rowland, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; Farano. VARIANCE NOQ 2117 - PUBLIC HEARING. BUCHEIM, GRESCHNER & STEINBRINK, 1323 East Edinger, SanCa Ana= California, Owners; WILLIAM D, GRESCHNER, 1323 East Edinger, Santa Ana, California, AgenC; requesting permiesion to EXPAND A NONCONFORMING USE (RETAIL SALES) IN A NONCONFORMING BUILAING on property deacribed as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land situated at the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Claudina Street, said parcel having approximate frontages of 320 feet on Katella Avenue and 395 feet on Claudina Street, and further described as 509 East Katella Avenue, Property preaencly classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONF,. Asaiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of aubject property, uses eatablished in cloae proximity, and the proposal to expand an existing, nonconforming use on aubject property by adding approximately 15,000 aquare feet of additional ware- housing facilities; that there were preaently approximately 30,000 aquare feet of warehousing area and 15,000 aquare feet of retail area included within the exiating structurea; that parking requirements for the combined retail-wholesale operation, including the propoaed addition, would be 120 parking spaces, whereas 142 spaces were shown, Mr. Bropn noted that aince this operation was in exiatence prior to the present M-1 Zone, eite development standards of that zone were lacking on the property as it per- tained to landscaping; that the area in question was basically industrial in nature, and developments which had occurred aince the adopCion of the M-1 Zone had been required to develop according to thoae site development standards - therefore, the i f , ..~~: ~', 7-~7~",• --- - y. ^~ ._ ~-:~ . . .. . _. _ _ . , '~~, y~~r r5;: ~a' ~v:;Tr :"~Fx=g"~"~,~'':'~, '~~ ~j;;; J l ... :: ..._ . .... .. ... ,. .. ~ - V ~ Y • '~.~~~ <:~t' "~ "iu - . . . .. ;',~i . ... . _ . . ~ . .. . ~1~ \~ ' ~ MIi~TUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 8, 1969 4802 VARIANCE N0, 2117 - Commiasion might wiah to consider requiring minimum landacaping ~ (Continued) as auggeated by etaff on the submitted plot plan for this property, namely, (a) a 10-foot wide landscape strip along the Katella Avenue frontage - this would eliminate 11 parking spaces but would still ~ leave the overall development aome 11 spacea above that required by Code and would ! improve the appearance o£ the front o£ the property, and (b) the addition of one tree i per 10,000 aquare feet of parking areas located within 200 feet of Katella Avenue. No one appear.+d to represent the petitioner. No one appeared in oppoaition to aubject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commisaion diacussed the recommended condition by the staff regarding landscaping and determined to withhold any conaideration of subject petition until later on in lhe hearing in order to allow time for the staff to contact the pelitioner so that he might be present to present his viewpointa regarding landscaping. (See page 4804) VARIAPICE N0, 2118 - PUBLIC HEARING. R.. L. WETZLER, P. 0. Box 2216, Anaheim, California, Owner; ANAHEIM FOREIGN CAR CENTER, INC,, 626 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; cequesting TIAIVER OF THE PERMITTED USES IN THE C-2 ZONE, TO PERMIT THE EXPANSION OF AN AUTO SALES LOT on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land conaieting of two lots on the southeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Water Street, said parcel having approximate froatagea of 109 feet on Water Street and 104 feet on Anaheim Boulevard, and further described as 600 South Anah~im Boulevard, Property presently clasaified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Bruwn reviewed the location of aubject property, uses establiahed in close proximity, and the proposal to expand an existing sutomobile sales lot located to the south; that the plana indicate asphalting the complete property, and landscaping would be provided along the Anaheim Boulevard and Water Street frantages in conformance with the requirements of Che C-1 Zone; that the proposed expansion would appear to be a lagiaal and appropriate one for the area; and that at the Interdepart- mental Committee meeting on August 28, it was recommended that the vehicular access~vay on Anaheim Boulevard nearest ti;a intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and Water StreeC be closed off by the applicant since it was extremely close to that intersection and could prove to be a traffic hazard in the £uture, and by closing it offn this would provide additional diaplay area for the petitioner. Furthermore, that if and when the single-family residen[ial structure on subject property was removed, that portion of the property should be developed in conformance with the C-1 landscaping, surfacing, lighting, etc. requirements. Mr. Vince Dialozo, repreaenting the property ownera, appeared before the Commission and noted that aub,ject property had been an eyesore as far as it pertained to their new foreign car di,splay center; that when the opportunity wae preaented to utilize subject property, they detexmined it would be ideal to improve this corner and tie it in with the present neu showroom. The Commisaion inquired as to the staff's recommendation relative to the closing of the vehicular accessway on Anaheim Boulevard nearest the Water Street in[ersection. Office Engineer Jay Titus adviaed the Commission that the Engineering Division was desirous of having this drive removed and curb and sidewalk replaced. This, then, would require dedication of acceas rights for that particular portion of the property. No one appeared in oppoaition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC69-182 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2118, subject to the Interdepartmental Commi~tee recommendations and an additional condition of requiring dedicaticn of access righta to the existing drive nearest the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and ~dater Street, inatallation of curb in the present drive, and sidewalks, as stipulated to by the petitioner. (See Resalution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COIIIIISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. -, ., -.~.~,, -~ _ y ^, . *.~ ~'~ . ~_ ~ . . . ~ C ~~ ~"'y""'R~''c "~'y~.."~`~~'J . T -~F•"aijry~ F r..i ~ y ~.^'" "~"^- /: a+r.~"~ t° .~~ l~~. r ty'~.R~"F'+C~,:~ t~' ~ w;t ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 8, 1969 4803 VARIANCE N0. 2119 - PUBLIC HEARING. OKEH CATERERS, 7221 Atlantic Avenue, Bell, California, and SIMEON AND JESSIE MELUGIN, 35?51 Beach Road, Capistrano Beach, California, Owners; E. E. ROUNDS, Suite 4Q9, Union Bank Square, Orange, California, Agent; requesting permission to CREATE A LOT SPLIT (PORTION 2) WITHOUT STREET FRONTAGE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land consiating of 3.4 acrea and zwo proposed portions aituated on the north side of Orangewood Aven::e, approximately 514 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard, Portion 1 having a frontage on Orangewood Avenue of approxi- mately 243 feet and a depth of approximately 252 feet, and Portion 2 being located adjacent to Portion 1, approximately 297 feet north of the centexline of Orangewood ' Avenue and approximately 514 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard. Eroperty preaently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. AsaiatsaE Zoning Supervieor Pat n~~wn reviewed the location of subject property~ uses esCablished in cioae proximity, noting that Conditional Use Permit No„ 1120, to eatab- lish a metroport with related facilities, included sub~ect property as a portion of the total acreage in the proposal; that the Planning Commisaion had approved the metroport site in July - however, the City Council hac not taken ffnal action; that from information aupplied by the agent for the petitiot;ers, it appeared thac soae time in 19G2 an original lot consiating of approximately 4 acres of land was split by a lease agreement and later by actual sale, and at the time of the original lease agreement, a 30-foot vehicular easement was granted the rear portion of the main parcel for accesa to Orangewood Avenue; that at the present time the original parcel consists of 1.41 acres having a frontage on Orangewood Avenue and a 2.08-acre parcel to the rear still had [he 30-foot easement to Orangewood; that the rear portion has been occupied for some time by one of the petitioners - however, the front parcel was vacant and the ownera had submitted development plans to construct an industrial building, at which time the staff had adviaed them that a landlocked parcel had been created bp the original lease and sale; that a variance to permit this landlocked parcel would have to be approved by the Planning Commission - however, a better solution would be that the ownera of the southerly portion grant title to the owners of the northeriy portion for the 30-foot vehicul.ar easement, which said owners were not desirous of doing - therefore, the variance •aNS filed; and that it had not been the policy of the City of Anaheim to permit lot splits which produce landlocked parcels, nor to allow coatinued existence of auch parcels where an opportunity exiated to correct the situation; therefore, the Commisaion might wish to recommend that an actual title exchange be arranged between the two landowners involved ao that the 30-foot, existing easement would be, in fact, a part of the rear lot which would provide frontage on Orangewbod Avenue, and a parcel map be filed to reflect this action, No one appeared to represent the petitioners. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commissiun inquired of the Deputy City Attorney whether or not the easemenC ran with the land. Mr. Brown stated that it was part of the preliminary title report. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commiasion that he had discusaed this with the staff, and although recorded easements might not be part of the Anaheim Municipal Code, it would be difficult to defend the requirement that said easement could not be considered as having acceas to a public street. The Commission further inquired what the long-range problems might be if this became a matter of right. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that ;: although this would not be a problem in the industrial or commercial zones, it would ;., be a considerable problem in the residential zones; that the existing easement would be adequate to serve subject property to the north - however, in some instances where a 30-foot access easement was provided, creating a rather large parcel, this would _ prove inadequate for circulation purposes, but in the case of subject petition it was appropriate since the parcel was rather small, and a 30-foot access easement would be aufficient. Mr. Lowry noted that so long as the easement had been recorded at the time the ~ease was granted and after sale of the property at such time as the parcel map was filed "= and recorded, the easement ahould be reflected and would be allowable as part of the -;; property to the north itself. , ,. : _ ~.~. , i ~` 4' ' ~ ' ~ ~. . ~ ^-- Y ~ ,.-v.«~ se ~ ;r ` : S` ~'. ~ ~~~, ~ .Y- ~.,~ . .,, ..... _. . . .. '. _ . , . :~ . .. _ C~_+' _ . . _ .~~;~.i ~ ^T'~L":~~` 2'r' l~ ~?Riif.{a L~' ''a ~1 I ! ~ .~~ 3"!u.^ 4~ d~yF ~~~ ~~„eya ~.~~.~.,N ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CODIliISSION, September 8, 1969 4804 VARIAr:G~ N0. 2119 - Commissioner Allred offered Reaolution No. PC69-183 and moved (Continued) for its passage and adoption, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2119 on the basis that the existing 30-foot r~ad easement was recorded and was part of the title report for the northerly portion, and, therefore, would not be landlocked upon recordation of a parcel map, and aubject to conditiona. (See Resnlution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vo•te: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, HerbsE, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. 'F':" I '~ ' ?;=~ ~ VARTANC~ N0. 2120 - PUBLIC HEARING. MARILYN L. TYSON, 2404 Briarvale Avenue, Anaheim , 4; ~ ' ~ ; ~~ , California, Owner; EDWARD F. FOLEY, 13300 Fletcher Street, Garden , ~ ~~ -a Grove, California, Agent; requeating WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM LOT AREA AND (2) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH TO ESTABL S , I H A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE _ '-: on property described as: A gore-ehaped parcel of land having a frontage of approxi- mately 23 fe t h ~~ e on t e north side of Briarvale Avenue, having a maximum depch of approximately 149 feet and being located approximately 150 feet east of the canter- li f P ne o aradise Streets and further described as 2411 ~ast Briarvale Avenue . Property presently claesified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. w ; ~' Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of eubject property and ~' usea eatabliehed in cloae proximity, noting that sub ect ~ property was the last porcion of a lar e R-1 t t h ~ g rac t at had not been developed due to the fact that a sliver of State ;~ :r property protruded into thia parcel; that the State had now relinquished this sliver and the petitioner had b :~j , com ined it with subject property; that the westerly portion of said lot had been purchased on March 1 1969 b ,,~~ , y the owner of the property to the west; that Cite petitioner was proposing to construct a single-family home on .~ '' subject praperty with the waivers indicated - however, the contractor had indicated that th t ~~ e s runture would be developed without any further need for waivera from the R-1 section of the Anaheim Munici al Cod d h ~ ~ p e; an t at the proposed requzat aeemed to be an appropriate and reasonable one in light of the fact th t h ~~ a t e lot area was very close to the minimum required by Code and the site was buildable without further ~ ,) need of vaziancea from Title 18. { ~ ~ ~f No one appeared to represent the petitioner. '~ ~;; i .; No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. -: ~~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, '3 Commisaioner Gauer offered Reaolution No. PC69-184 and moved for ita passage and ado tion to p grant Petition for Variance No. 2120. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resoluCion was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIO?iERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Thom Rowland ~ , , NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. '~' ABSENT~ COMMISSIONERS: Farano. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING, LAZARE F. BERN~RD, Suite 500, Gateway East PERMTT N0. 1131 Building, Los Angeles, Californis, O~er~ ~gDWARE WHOLESALERS, INC,, 2144 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requeating permission for OUTDOOR STORAGE OF BUILDING MATERIAL PRODUCTS IN THE M-1 ZONE iJITH WAIVER OF THE 50-FOOT SETBACK ADJACENT TU AN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY on property described as; A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located on the northeast corner of Broadway and Loara Street, with frontages of approximately 137 feet on the north side of Broadway and approximately 150 feet on the east side of Loara Street, and further described as 1599 West Broadway, Property preaently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE_ *: ;~e: I; Aasistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub~ect property, usea established in close proximity, and the proposal to utilize subject property for ~utdoor storage of build3ng materials for Lin-Brook Hardware; that plans indicated a 6~foot masonry wall along the north and east property lines, as well as a 6-foat mason~ry wall to the rear of the 10-foot landscaped area adjacent to Broadway and to the rear of the 5-foot landscaped area along Loara Street; that Loara Street being a local street, the setback and landscaping were in conformance with Code - however, Broadway, a~econdary highway, would require a 50-foot aetback and 10 feet of landscaping ad~acent to the street right-of-way, with the additional , ~ - _: ~ • : - . ~ „ : ' S 1., :,. . ; -._~ ,..~~.,`7rx~E~t' ~"M`~ "'~~~~~'7'tiS.~'v,'y~.srra ~ '~ ~'x; z~3 r. ~c ~ ,.y, y,., ;yy-~,I ~.~ ~.7 ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 8, 1969 4805 CONDITIONAL USE - 40 feet being used for parking purposes; that singular vehicular PERMIT N0, 1i31 access points were indicated for both Broadway and Loara, and (Continued) asphalt paving was proposed for the entire aurface oF the property within the proposed walls; and that at the last Planning Cormnisaion meeting a variance request to permit a 10-foot struc-• tural setback had been approved for property to the east of subject propercy - thereforey granting of this waiver was determined by the Commission to be appropriate since this area was special in nature, and though industrial, was not a part of the larger Northeast or Southeast Industrial Areas, nor was it located in the interior of an induatrial development. Therefore, it would appear that the requeat for a structural setback and minim~ landscaping elong Broadway would be within the same field of reasoning - however, the Co~iasionwould wish to conaider the request to permit an M-2 usey that being building ~ material atorage yard, at ~his location; that although the plans indicate a 6-foot masonry wall completely encloaing the proposed sCOrage area, the height of chis wall could prove inadequate to nrovide complete screening of any such storage since quite often these materials were stacked to heights exceeding 6 feet, and it might ultimately prove to be visually detrimental to the surrounding area wheretn a well-designed and maintained apartment complex was located to the southwest of subject property, and the property immediately to the soutn was indicated as being appropriate for multiple-family residential uses cn thc~ Preliminary General Plan-1969; and that in the event the Planning Commiasion determined this would be an appropriate use at this location, the Commisaion might wish to consider a condition prohibiting the stacking of materials above the 6-foot wall. Mr. Lawrence Heman, Vice Preside.it of Lin-Brook Hardware, appeared before the Commission and noted they were leasing the loti that the analysis of the staff was quite completa, but if the Commission were desirous of having an 8-foot masonry wall enclose the storage area, this would be stipulated to since after speaking with the material handling people who brought their equipment which would be stored on sub~ect property, he had been informed that many times the stacking would be up to 8 feet. The Commission inquired whether or not the proposed use was to be considered an interim use; whereupon Mr. Heman replied that obviously this would be since it was planned co have additional stores, and when subject property proved to be inadequate to provide space for atorage of materials to aervice all stores, the use of the property would then be discontinued. Mr. Heman,,in reapanse to further Commission queationing, noted that basically they pro- poaed to have structural lumber stared on subject property, and at times the height of the stacked material would be 8 feet, and that the interim use of the property would befor approximately twn to three years. ;a ~ Mr. Jerome Levinson, representing Capital Concept Corporation, 10889 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, owner of the Sherwood Apartments located at the southwest corner of Broadwav and Loara Street, appeared before the Commiasion and requested that his letter of opposi- tion be made a matter of record in the minutes (said letter then being read by the Commission Secretary) as they were basically opposed to a variance which wouid permit an industrial uae which would be detracting to the area and might rapidly affect the property values and appearance of the adjoining propertiea. Chairman Rowland noted that two weeks ago at the Commission public hearing the Commiasion had approved a struetural aei:back of 10 feet from Broadway, and the requeat to construct [he wall 10 feet from the Broadway property line was in line with t'~is approval. The Co~i~aion inquired aa to the type of landacaping proposed. Mr. Rex Coona, 111 West Elm Street, appeared before the Commission and noted that the plans aubmitted indicated conifers along the wall and lower landacaping along the side- walk; that the conditiona recommended by the staff had been reviewed, and they were not opposed to them - however, they would stipulate to installation of landscaping as required by the staff and to work with the staff as to the proper 7.andscaping. The Commiasion then determined if it were necessary to maintain an acceptable appearance for developed properties to the south and west that a condition should be attached that stacking be no higher than the required wall. The Commission further inquired whether the owner was planning to develop solid gates; whereupon Mr. Coons replied they were planning an open chainlink fence type -• however, they would provide solid gates, incerweaving the chainlink fence if the Commiasion so desired, and the gates would be cloaed most times excepc when open to remove aupplies and store suppliea. , . --- . - _ ` , y ~,. . *+., ~ x ~ h~ ., 1 ~j ~:RC_ .< , .. . ~, ., ~ . . ~~ . - . 4~i . ~ , . $f 1y( ,~~',J`D015~"7'`9TJ,",'~~f :~'1.T'd~°4 R~iM.[~.'~YCE _ __ ~ ]~' ~ I S " F ..~' ~, ~` f .t 1 _ ..i~1~ a'' 1 ~ ~~ , ~ ~ (J ( ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 8, 1969 4806 CONDITIONAL USE - Another letter of opposition from Mr, H. N. Berger, owner of PERMIT N0. 1131 the 15-acre parcel to the south of subject propertyD was read (Continued) to the Commiasion, requesting that if aubject petition were approved without requiring a concrete wall enclosure, tnis would be most unsightly and unattractive and would be harmful to the development of his property for apartment unita, However, if approved, they would request that a minimum of a 6-foot concrete wall be required surrounding ~:he storage area, together with proper landscaping of the exterior o£ the wall, and that none of the outdoor storage building materials be visible from the adjoining properties. - THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~~,;;;,cyt ~~"~' Diacuasion was held by the Commission relative to the need for an 8-foot wall along the `~~ north property line aince the Commisaioa had previously approved the expansion of the ~-,,,, ,s~ private achool utilizing this property for a playground area. The Commission ecncurred _;~; .`;~ that a 6-foot masonry wall would be adequate along the north and a portion of the east ;:~ property lines. ;'~ _ Commiesioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC69-185 and moved for its paesage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1131, aubject to coastruction of an ~. 8-foot maeonry wall along Loara Street and Broadway, with the 8-foot wall extending - approximately 50 feet northerly from Broadway along the east property line, and a 6-foot ; masonry wall for the balance of the east property line, together with a 6-foot masonry , wall along the north property line as stipulated to by the petitioner; that atorage of materiale shall not exceed the height of the wall; and that a time limitation of three e; yeara for the use of sub~ect property be granted, with review of the use by the Commiasion for an extension of time for said use. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote; ,"' ~ ~~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. , ;~: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. RECESS - Commisaioner Thom offered a motion to recesa the meeting for ten minutes. Commiasioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED„ The meeting recesaed at 4:00 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Rowland reconvened the meeting at 4:15 P.M., all Co~isaionera being present except Commissioner Farano. RECLASSIFICATION - pUBLIC HEARINGo INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, N0, 69-70-9 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property described as Parcel 1- consiating of approximately 6 acrea of land located on the west aide of the proposed extension of Tustin Avenue (foxaierly Jefferson Street), approximately 225 feet north of Miraloma Avenue and further described as Linda Vista Annexation No. 1, and Parcel 2- consisting of approximately 3,080 square feet (47 feet by 65 feet) located on the west side of the centerline of the proposed extension of Tuatin Avenue, approximately 1,330 feet north of the centerline of Piiraloma Avenue, and farther described as Linda Vista Annexation No, 2, be reclassified from COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT to the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and uses established in close proximity, noting that Parcel 1 was the City of Anaheim water reservoir and booster station, and a City water well was located on Parcei 2; that subject parcels were within the area of intent for industrial land usee• as designated on the present Anaheim General Plan and the Preliminary General Plan-1969 - therefore, the appropriate and comparable City zone would be M-1, Light Industrial. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. °;l , :~ ~ Co~issioner Thom offered Resolution No. PC69-186 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend *_o the City Council that Petition for Raclassification No. 69-70-9 be ' approved unconditionally. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. " ~~,~--~','."~'F~~Y . -~.. ,. :. . ~_ , . ~ , . ~ . `1~ x,,.~,~ E ~,,< ~' ,.~a;rih ..: a yr{~ ir~ '~ ~~"' J ~ ? y" +`" i a _ 5 ~.'..'. ~ ' -~~.`~_~~ . . i. )r, ~ ~ ~.~ MIPI[JTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 8, 1969 4807 _ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY TAE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, N0. 69-70-12 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Caliiornia; proposing that prooerty described as; A generally r2ctangular parcel of land consisting of several lots and approximately 35.5 acres located northeast and nor[hwest of the intersection of Orangethorpe Avenue and Kellogg Drive, be ~ reclassified from COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT to the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. - Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, noting it was generally bounded by Orangethorpe Avenue on the south, developed single-family tracts to the west and east, and Woodwind Lane on the north; that subject property was presently undergoing annexation proceedings to the Ci[y; that properties to the northwest ,~=,=T;~`'~ had a resolution of intent to R-2-5000 and agricultural to the northeast with the pro- a posed Esperanza High School site; that single-family subdivision existed to the east, N '. with the Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way, industrially zoned land, and agricultural land ~; t to the south; that vehicular circulation would be provided by Orangethorpe Avenue, a major highway, on the south, Kellogg Drive, a secondary highway, bisecting the two , - parcels, and Woodwind Lane to the north. Mr. Brown further noted that Reclassification No. 68-69-88 had been approved establishing a resolution of intent to the City of Anaheim R-2-5000 for the west and northwesterly portion of subject annexation, this being an L-shaped, 9-acre parcel, on June 24, 1969; that the owner of the remaining acreage at the northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Kellogg Drive had requested reclassification for the property to the Anaheim C-1 Zone - however, this was continued for four weeka by the Planning Commission in order that it cauld be heard at the same time as another proposed reclassification request for the easterly portion; and that in order to provide for the controlled development of the area in accordance with the General Plan, it was recommended that the property be reclassified to the City of Anaheim R-A, Agricultural, Zone. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC69-187 and moved for its passage and adoption to recormnend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-12 be approved unconditionally. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. RECLASSIFICATION - PU9LIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ N0. 6°~ZO-11 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Ca:ifornia; proposing that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Ball Road and having frontages of app;e~imataly 150 feet on Beach Soulevard and approximately 150 fget on Ball Road, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE,. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed Che location of subject property, noting that the petition was initiated by the Couunission; that surzounding land uses included other service station sites, motels, and restaurants; that no previous zoning actions had taken place on the praperty, and it was one of the parcels remaining which had not. been reclassified during 1964 and 1965 when the Commission initiated numerous reclassi- fication actions to bring service station sites into their more appropriate zones, and subject proper[y was nu[ included at that time since consideration was being given to a possible Commercial-Recreation ~one for the Beach Boulevard area. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. :~~ Co~issioner Allzed offered Resolution No. PC69-188 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-11 be approved unconditionally. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMIS.^~IUNERS; None. ABSENT: CO,QSISSIONERS: Farano. • , . . - . , j ~.~ '7 ..F`f:' / T .;.i ~ _ •~.? MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 8, 1969 4808 ... ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~•~ ~ '~ VARIANCE N0. 2117 - Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advis~ed (Continued) the Commission that he had requested Che staff to contact the petitioner so that he might be present to discuss possible conditions being imposed; hcaever, up to the present timP che petitioner had not appeared. Co~issioner Herbst noted that his only objection was he was not desirous of imposing conditions. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown noted that the suggested landscaping treatment was req~xired under the M-1 site development atandards - therefore, it would be part of the building permit if no variance had been requested. Commissioner Herbst then noted he was in favor of any improvement with landscap•ing, Co~issioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC69-181 and moved for its passagQ and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2117, subject to conditions and provisic,n of a 10-foot wide landscape strip along the Katella Avenue frontage and one tree per 10,000 square feet to be provided with irrigation facilities in the parking areas located within 200 feet of Katella Avenue, (See Resolution Book) On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. The Commission then rlirected tpe staff to inform the petitioner telephonically regarding the landscaping requirements imposed on approval of sub,ject petition. REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS RECLASSIFICATION N0, 64-65-85 (Henegar Construction Corporation) - Proposal to develop an enclosed fish and chips type restaurant on property located approximately 400 feet north of the centerline of Center Street on the west side of State College Boulevard - Approval of revised plans and amendment to conditions of approval in Resolution No. 65R-231. Asaistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented a request and plana from the proposed developer of an enclosed fish and chips type reataurant to be located on the west side of State College Boulevard, approximately 400 feet north of the centerline of Center Street, property having been approved and having a resolution of intent to C-1 to estab- lish a medical center and hospital complex - however, no ordinance had been read on said property; that along with the property along the State College T3oulevard frontage there was also an R-1 parcel fronting on Coffinan Avenue to the west on which approval for the P-1, Automobile Parking, Zone had been approved - however, said parcel was only accessible from the northeasterly corner of the property to the north and would have no direc[ or indirect connection with the State College Boulevard frontage. The staff had discussed the proposed request with the physicians on the staff of the ' medical center, and they had indicated they no longer intended to utilize said property and were aware of the fish and chips restaurant proposal; that as a result of no further ' contempl!tted expansion, they did not intend to use the sma,l l.ot fronting on Coffman ~ ''''' Avenue as a parking lot - however, were considering developing apartmenta on the lot in ' the future; and that as a result of new plans being submitted, it was determined that ' the conditions of approval by the City Council in Resolution No. 65R-231 should be j amended so that development of t~ae State College Boulevard frontage known as Parcel 1 ~ and reclassification could occur without being hindered by leaving the Coffman Avenue j lot undeveloped and without reading an ordinance - therefore, the staff recommended that Condition No. 3 be amended to read, "That all vehicular access rights to Coffman Avenue for Parcel Na. 2 be made prior to the reading of an ordinance reclassifying said parcel only, and that ordinances reclassifying subject property shall be adopted as each parcel is ready to comply with conditions pertaining to each parcel", and chat ' Condition ido. 4 ahould be amended to read, "That subject property, known as Parcel No. 1, shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim, marked Exhibit No. 1, Revision No. 1", and other recommended amendmenta the Co~nnission might deem advisable. Discussion was held by the staff and the Commission relative Co the proposal for subject property, and the Commission inquired as to the ultimate plans for the rear 120 feet of the 401+ foot deep parcel. - ,. . . ~~.. _~ . ._ .~ , . . , ~.. . . , -:: ~ 1.n . V . 'G c ..~ t . . . I. I . . .. . . . . .. .. w~'~c~ht' ~' F. ~ A-~=r;a r;~ .,~/ ~ ~ , ~ ~.•:: ;, ; ~ r , . ---- ~ _,~, ~ 4~./ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COI~IISSION, September 8, 1969 4809 REPORTS AND RECOM1~fENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 1 (Continued) - Mr. Brown adviaed the Commission that sub~ect property would be under the ownership of the operatora of the restaurant, and they had indicated the rear portion might be used _,-,:- ~ : , ~, for a future storage building or additional parking. _ , The Co~miasion then deemed it was necessary that an additional requirement be made that the unpaved area for the weaterly 120 by 81-foot parcel be physically separated by a fence or some other barricade to prohibit utilization of the parcel until such time as - "" . said parcel was developed in accordance with the aite development standards of the ~ :~ C-1 Zone. ':=,`e?;~:~s °" Co~issioner Herbet offered Reaolution No, PC69-189 and moved for its paseage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that an amendment to Resolution of Intent ~ ;,~ No. 65R-231, approving Reclassification No. 64-65-85 be made to Condition Nos. 3 and 4, - to read as followa: ;~ Condition No. 3- That all vehicular acceas righta to Coffman Avenue for Parcel No. 2 ~;-~; ; be made prior to the reading of an ordinance reclassifying said 1 parcel only; and that ordinances reclassifying subject property ahall be adopted as each parcel ia ready to comply with conditiona pertaining to each parcel, ~ Condition No. 4- That aub~ect property, known as Yarcel No. 1, shall be developed aubstantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim, marked Exhibit No. 1, Revision No. 1, provided, however, that the unpaved area to the west ahall be physically separated by a fence to prohibit its use until auch time as said portion complies with Code requirementa for parking or other permitted uses; furthetmore, that plana for development of ' Parcel No, 2 shall be aubmitted to the City Council for approval 'a :;:; prior to reading of an ordinance. ;1 , . ; (See Reeolution Book) ; . ~` ~~ ';~ On roll call the fore oin resolution was 8 8 passed by the following vote: ~ ; =~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. ~ NQ$S: COMMISSIONERS: None. ! '::::~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ' ~ ITEM N0. 2 ': Orange County Feasibility Study for Regional Parka ; ~ ' in the Santa Ana Canyon Area - Orange County Planning ' Co~iasion acheduled Public Hearing on Amendment No. 2 ~ ` (Plan 3B) to the Master Plan of Regional Parks, f Asaiatant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson presented a report of studiea ' ~' made by the Orange County Planning Department regarding consideration of a Regional 3 ~ Park to be located approximately 3,000 feet east of Imperial Highway between Esperanza ~ Road, the Santa Fe Railroad tracka, and the Santa Ana River and extending easterly to ~ link with Featherly Park (formerly Sycamore Flats). , Mr. Thompaon noted that numerous alternatives had been studied by the Orange County Planning staff, and at the May 27, 1969 meeting of the Orange County Board of Super- visora, that body, upon adopting by resolution a plan referred to as "3B" of the Feasibility Study for Regional Parks in the Santa Ana Canyon Area, referred said study back to the Planning Commisaion, who then set for public hearing on September 24, 1969, coneideration of Amendment No. 2 to the Master Plan of Regional Parks to conaider Plan 3B, said plan encompasaing 386 acres. The park would have a landscaped access corridor extending from Imperial Highway along the river; that the propoaed facilities would include day or overnight camping, picnicking, equestrian center-trails, natural reaerve, playfielda, vista pointa, wat•er fishing, water awi~ing, shoreline fishing, and shoreline awimming; and that the cost of acquisition and development would be approximately $17,500 per acre, Mr. Thompaon then noted that the concept plans had been reviewed by the Planning and Parka and Recreation staffs. It was the staffs' opinion that the proposed amendment to the Master Plan of Regional Parka would be extremely deairable; and that the pro- poaed park would be beneficial to both Anaheim and northern Orange County. ~ . .,,.. ~. .~, ~ .. .~:,~~.. ~,r, , ,. ~... . ,.:.. ,:: .. . ` ;. ,:, h. _ , . . . 4 , ,~. . .,, _ , ,. _ , . . . . .. . . , - . .. +~`~~ '[~+fr.w~P'~t~ ~=Lt i t+~',i~l'J4~wY~~~'eit~% r~r n t.. a.+rs~ M 7~ a eS b e ~'., ~ ~ ~, ~ k, .r'~ a'n ~ nz 1' , . •a ~~ -.~ : ~Me ~. ~ ~ ..9 ti ... .z'' = Sk Y~~ ,: ~+ wk y,fi P h t t r* a . ' ~ ~... . ' ~ ~ . . ~... ~~ MINUTES, CITY PI.ANNING COMTiISSION,:S~ptember 8, 1969 4810 REPORTS AND' . RECOrII~1DATI0NS - ITEM N0, 2 (Continued) Conaiderable diacussion was held by the Co~ission regarding the propoaed amendment and the present and"future planning for this area. " Coffiisaioner Thom:offered a motion to recommend to the City.Council that the Orange County Planning Co~nission be urged.to approve the proposed Amendment to the Master Plan:of Regional Parks :(Ameadment No.'2 - Plan 3B), oa the basis that the proposed park•would be an excellent utilization of.property within the Santa Ana River flood plain, aad'would.provide much needed open space and park landa for the reaidente of ~ : norEhern Orange Countq. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further buainess to discuas, Commiasioner Gauer offered a motion to'ad~ourn the meeting. Commisaioner Allred aeconded the motion, MO.CION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 4:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~i~~'~~ ~~~J ANN KREBS, Secretarf~~ y ""~ • Anaheim City Planning Commiasion