Minutes-PC 1970/11/02._,. r. - ,,,~.;,;~„r:-
, ~
L , 4/ ~
~ '" ~ ' ` ~~
x
~' r ~ ~
• + '
,:.~J
I
~ ' ~ M~
city Haii
_ ~~
~
Anaheim, California 'c:~
November 2, 1970 ": "'"=
,~;;
A REGtJLAR":MEETING OF THE:ANAHEIM~'CITy pI,ANNING COt~A1ISSI0N ry
£~Y
- ~~~
~.~
'
' '
REGULAR MEETING A'regulai meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion
was called to ~.7r
r'}~
.
„_ order by_Chairman Herbst at 2 OS o':c2ock~~PiM , a.quorum;being present. '~~.rr
': PRESENT
,
CHAIRMAN: .. Herbst '"
~:t
.
'.
, '., '. , ,
~
ti
s ~'
:
- COi4tISSIONETtS :Allred; Farano, Gauer'(ent:ered the.Council Chamber at' ~
.
~"'""
` ~ '; `. `; :,' ;``2 15 P.M:),,'Kayr~bod,.Rowland,;Seymour.
.
~: - -y*"
`ABSENT' COII1tISSIONERS 'Noae. `
.
~
, '
, x'~~
. • , ',;
:
. : , :
~
~
'PRESENT Assistant Development'Servicea Diiector: Ronald.Thompson i
•,Assistant CiEy,;Attoraey. `• .John Dawson
Office
~Engineer:
.
Jay Titus
2oning,Supervisor: Charles:RoberEs'
~~'
.-P2anning,Commission;Secretery: ,AnntKrebs
;
~ r1~;.'
:
PLEDGE i 0F . . (
ALLEGIANCE. r-Coa~ieaioner Kaywood led in,Ehe'Pledge of Allegience to.the Flag.
' - . :?
_
APPROVAL OF •Minutes of the meeting;.of.Octobei 5.` 1970 'were a
. , pproved on moEion.by
THE
d ~~~;.
~
MII
UTES Commisaioner Kaywood,,:seconded by Commisaioner Gauer, and MOTION CARRIED,
wi
' `
r ~"
th th
e,following corrections '
0
" ,~
~~,
Pages 52
6.through
5235.should be numbered 5446 through 5435.
Pege 5417, paragraph 9;.line,2 should read, "to,grant .. . waiver 2-a
~
' <~
, ~
:: ~, .., .;maximum~~.. :. .
, _:, ::
Page 5422, parag=aph 5,.line;3 `should read, "1936 .. , part of it" i
.
Page 5435, paragraph.4, last liae.ahould.;ead, "MOTION•CARRIED°. , P.
~ ' Minutea of the meeting of October 19, 1970,,were approved on motion by
om
' ~~'
C
misaioner 5eymour,
..seconded by.,Coiiaaiesioner Rowland, and MOTION
`
1 '~~
' ;'
CA£~P.IED,t with the following _ correction: : r
Pagea 5236 through 5259 should be numbered 5436 through'S459.
i - ~"
~ RECLAS$IFICATION CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. HUGHES MARKETS, INC.,'2716 San Femando Road
NO 70=71 17 -
o -
,
L
s Angeles, Calffornia, Owner, LE ROY ROSE, 1711 Westmont Drive
Anaheim ~
,
,
' , ; Californis;.Agent; property:described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of
VARIANCE N0. 2215
land coneieting of a
pro
ima
l
~ ~
.
p
x
te
y l0
acrea located generally at the south-
, east cornei of Orange Avenue 'and Beach'Boulevard, having approximate
frontagee of 615 feet,on th
e f
e ea
t aide of Beach Boulevard,and 421 feet on
_ the eouth eide`of Orange Avenue, having a maximimm de
th of a
pro
i
t
l '
p
p
x
ma
e
y
815 feet: Property presently clasaified C-1', GENERAL COhA~RCIAL, ZONF.
f
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION:.• R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
.. . . . . . . . . .
~
~
f
. . .
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIYER OF;(1) MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM A COVERED PARKING SPACE TO A i
DWELLING UNIT AND (2) MINIMUM DI3TANCE BEIWEEN BUILDINGS
TO ,
j ,
,
ESTABLISH A 306-UNIT APART,:~NT COMPLEXc
. , ~.
~~~`
Subject petitions were continued from the October 19, 1970, meeting to allow staff time to_
anal
ze
the revi
ed
l
y
;
s
p
ans submitted foo late for detailed review.
Zoning•'Supervisor Charles Roberts'reviewed the location of subject property, uses estahlished
in close`proximit
and the
s
!
'
y,
prqpo
a
to
estatzlish a two-storX, 306-unit,apartment.complex;
that the 150 feet orr.the 'easterly
portios
of
the-p
op '
.
.
.
r
erty which was limited.to single-story
construction was almost entirely devoted to parkirig ourposes; that the petitions as orig;tnall
d
i
~
y
a
vert
sed had some uAits°more than 200 feet from a covered,parking space - however, the
revised plans
;now indicated
all unit
e
th i
,
:
s wer
wi
in the required:200 feet; and, therefore, this
waiver-was no"longer necessary; that the:plans
proposed only 13 feet bet
n m
n
_
wee
ai
buildings -
primarily carports and,apartment units,.- which;'would be deyoted to patio areas, and this
v
c
!
arian
e had`been granted in the past; and that the'overall;impression was that the site wes
overdevelope
d with:the recreation
l
e
r
r
,
a
ar
a
athe
minimal`and dot convenient to the many units
along Beach Boulevard'. Furthermore; the applicant propoaed a density of 33
53 a
i
.
n
ts per net
acre, arid this increase in land coverage went hand-in-hand with the minimal recreational
facilities and poor'distributi
o
h
on
n t
e site.
5460
i_ .
-- _ I
L_ . ;';
w[: ~^r ~4 . .r t ~r ~ ~.:
3j "' :~5: :'"
.~.. . . . - . .
.,.,.~, ,. ~ . . ...,_..- . ... ._. ~.
.. . - •-•. ...;-.~:,:. .,.,. ...
~_ ,~\
MINUTES, CI7~PLANNING CO2~Il~IISSION, November ~;°1970 5461
~ ',' 'tY
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Roberts also noted that the%Fire Chief had expressed concern regarding
N0. 70-71-1T the area near the northwest portion of the property wherein 70 carports
were proposed off dead-end driveways which had no cul-de-sac or tum-around
VARIANCE N0: 2215 area which would allow.fire'vehicles to gain access to this area in the
(Continued) event of a fire in one of the.carports, and the -0hief had suggested that
the alleyway be returned to form a circular drive, and the applicant had
indicated this could be done. •
Mi.:Roberts noted that the General Plan projected subject property as being appropriate for
medium-density residentiel;development and_a fiighwa:y-related coa~ercial deaignation for Beach ',
Boulevard. "Therefcre, given.the amount of:commercial properties in this area, it would appear '
that.deleting the'commercial fronEage would have n~~ significant impact upon the General Plan.
~ Mr. Roberta, in conclusion,'noted that given paet Planning Coa~ission and City Council action
r~garding stepdown zoning, it would appear.that s2ngle-story apartments could be developed
adjacent to:the R-i parcels along the easterly property. line and the balance toward Beach
Boulev,ard.could~be developed for two-atory units - this would present a more compatible and
less dense>apartment complex.
Mr.,LeRoy Rose;.architect and agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commiasion and
noted that since the last public hearing the plans were revised to include the small parcel
omitted at the northwest corner of the project; that multiple-family sesidential units were
planned for the entire project, and the only waiver requested was the distance between building~
that they would be able to comply with the Fire Chief's request regarding the circular driveway
by reduMng the deyelopment by approximately six units; that staff had indicated there was a
density problem even though the project was cloae.to the maximum; that the two-bedroom uaits
I were approximately 211 squar~ feet above•the minim~ requirement; that there were more than the
required covered parking epacea based on the fact that iE was necessary to have some of the
unita cloaer to the~covered parking; that'in order to'achieve more open space, the staircases
could be reduced to 4 feet, although this would,detract from the aesthetic appearance of the
facility; that the development was primarily one-bedroom units which would be catering to
adulta; that if the property were retained for cos~ercial uses, there would be considerably
more noise and thus in~urious to the single-family residenta in the area; that they planned
to screen off the easterly property with a planting strip, although most of the open parking
was.propoaed along the eaeterly perimeter; and that the portion left out which was formerly
planned for,the.aervice station was now proposed to be developed for apartments.
Commissioner Gauer noted that the architect had rather loaded that portion of the property
with 36'apartmenta on only 27,000 aquAre feet.
Mrs. Eleanore,Spencer, 513 SouEh Laxore Street, appeared before the Commisaion in opposition '
and noted that her-home was directly opposite the proposed development, being located at the
interaection of Orange Avenue and Laxore Street; that ahe wae opposed to the proposed develop- `
ment'becauae there already were conaiderable problems getting City servicea to the property
in this area, euch as fire and police; that if the Commiesion determined subject property '
;ahould be developed for apartments, then the leaet that should be required would be a dedicated
etreet through the property, juet ae Laxore Street was dedicated and was only three blocks long:
.that if the development contained children, this would add to an already overloaded elementary :
and high achool syatem - therefore, the problem of overtaxing school facilitiea ahould be of
paramount importance te the Commisaion; that ahe wae further concerned with tl:e e,dded traffic
a complex of this eize would create near her bedroome whiah were located on the Orange Avenue
aide of the propnrty aince the project indicated the majority of the parking would be adjacent
to Orange Avenue and the east eide of the property immediately adjacent to her property.
The Cos~iaeion inquired whether or not Mrs. Spencer was aware of the fact that the property '
wae preaently zoned C-i; whereupon Mrs. Spencer replied that she had reaided there for twelve
years, and ehe would rather have homea built there ii• commercial uses were not anticipated,
but ahe would prefer the commercial zoning being retained aince if it were developed as that,
there would.be better police protection for this area.
Mr. Robert Steffke, 627 Gaymont Street, appeared before the Coumiiasion in oppoaition and '
preaented a petition aigned by 69 persone, all in opposition, which was read as follows:
"The members.of the West Anaheim Property Owners Asaociation do hereby formally protest that
we strongly ob~ect and oppose the proposed re-zoning of the property consiating of approximatel•
ter..acres located at the southeast corner.of Beach Boulevard and Orange Avenue to erect a 270
or more unit apartment atructure; that we do not feel that this propoaed atructure would be in
the best interest of either the residente a2ready aettled in this area or the general improve-
ment of the City of Anaheim; that there are a large number of rentals in this area of one aquari
mile bordered by Lincoln Avenue on the north, Ball Road on the south, Beach Boulevard on the
west and Magnolia Avenue on the east in which 17 apartment complexea, 15 motels, and 3 trailer
parka already existed; that the propoaed increase•in population density would only act to
deteriorate the area and would not be in the best intereats of the community; that it would
increase pollution, increase achool attendance.in already overcrowded schools, and increase
the noise level and cauee excesaive traffic~.aand that the residenta of this area had large '
± ~
. .
.. .
r . ir - ,
_ .,, ~ ;.
~J
. . , (a -..;. . _ . . . . . _ . . . . . ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . • ~ . . ..,~
~
'.MINUTES, CITY.FiANNING COHIiISSION, November 2,'1970 5462 I
>RECIASSIFICATION -'investments in their.properties and felt that these things, .along with
.. . ,
NOr 70-71 IT> ' others:too.numerous to-menEion; would cause the,p=operty values to
~ depreciate.° :
VARIANCE N0.J2215 `'
'.,(Continued) Co~issioner,Farano inquired.of Mr: Steffke whether he would prefer P•,-3'
or G 1'zoning;,whereupon.Mi:'Steffke replied that when he,purchased his
`. :: ,property in,.1964, the map:of-~tie~area indicated.a shopping'complex would
~ be developed:on the ten acres under consideration, and although he:reelized.one could not force
'anyone;to erect something:=they`did not want to;;he and his neighbors had purchased their proper-
•ties,;on.the assumption thaE aubject property'`would'be developed for commercial uses - there-
'~fore,;:he felE;there-was some'.type of misrepresent'ation.
The'Commiasion expressed surprise,,that`the homeowriers were not in oppoeition to the C-1 zoning
on:tlie' ro ert
p p y;.wliereupon Mr. Steffke:replied that.the~property owners bordering subject
property;had°'always.been aware.that it was co~ercial and felt that it was a lesser drawback
`'as to;property depreciation than if apartments were.developed.
The Commission then+>requested.that Mr.`Steffke explain what he meant by misrepresentation; '
whereupon,Mr.?SteffkE stated that'when the.single-family homeowners had purchased their proper-
'ties,-they;anticipated having a ahopping complex in their'area and assumed this would be i
: developed,. and thus he felt that Hughes Markets was miarepresenting their property.
{
The Co~ission indicated that they were 'sure.the Hughes.Marke,ts would prefer.to develop the ~
properfy for co~ercial facilities, but they evidently determined after approximately ten years
that this appeared not to be the best use for the,property.
'Chairman Herbst inquired es to;whether or not the City Traffic Engineer had comparison data
as to'the, number of vehicles that would.be_using the coumiercial property and the number of
vehicles if the'property were developed';;ior apartments.
Office.Engineer-Jay,Titus advised the Commission that there were no figures available, but he
would assume'there would be considerably more traffic from a co~ercial operation.
,Mr. Glenri Sponseller, 2961 West Orange Avenue, owner of the property at the northeast corner of
Laxore Street;and Orange Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated he
`concurred with the previous;statements made by.theaopposition and would prefer C-1 to R-3 zoning
because there would be:a considerable amount of~reffic generated during the early morning and
late.evening;hours"by ~the size`of this complex, especially since few access points were proposed~
and most.of tfie people from this complex would be adding to the trafPic flow during working ~
hours,;whereas a co~aercial.operation would not.be using the streets at the same time, and that ~
there,;also.exiated a traffic probTem because of the signalization at Beach Boulevard and Orange
Avenue which,backed up left-turn traffic to Laxore Street.
Mr::Robert Highland, 619 GeymonE Street, appeared,before the Cou~ission in opposition and noted
that he concurred with the.previous opposition made by adjoining property owners but also wished
Co expreas'concern regarding drainage of the property since drainage occurred on his property :
from west to•east of his lot onto Gaymont Street; and: if the change in grade was not determined,
the property owners could be.subjected to a 9-foot wal L
r
~:L"
;~;
;,
p HTyS
~
, "`,'`?
:~
The Co~ission advised Mr'. Highland that many properties had to have special fill and drainage
provided - however, the City Engineer would control that probiem, and the height of the wall
was measured from the finished grade level of subject or abutting properties. ~
Mr. Highland expressed concern that there would be.a high noise level if all open parking ~`
togetfier with veh;tcles backing out of the carports to the accessway were permitted, which vould ~ '~
generate the noises, and it'would affect their residences since tiieir bedrooms were closest to
•.the wall, and this could disrupt their rest•at night - therefore, he would prefer co~ercial to
multiple-femily residential~zoning for subject property, and that he could see no reason for
having two walls back-to-back because they already had a 6-foot masonry wall on their proper;y `"
line.
~Mr...Rose, in rebuttal, stated that they wculd prefer to utilize the existing wall, and where
there was no concrete wall,'they would replace it pro~ided the property owner consented; that ~
altliough the opposition expresaed.preference for cort~ercial over reaidential, it was a known ~
fact that properties adjacent to con¢nercial uses had less value than when they were adjacent
to apartments; that there would be no overload of schools since this argument had been presented!
before and reviewed - this could be verified by contactii:g Mr. Iiarold Franzen of the Anaheim '
Elementary School District who had advised him there'were no schools in Anaheim which had double
sessions, and that most of the school registration was below the maximum, and this statement was
also made when the apartments were`proposed on Nutwood Street,where it turned out the school had
a capacity for 1200 students and only 900 of the students were registered; that apartment .
oomplexes in Anaheim were known to have a very low vacancy factor because single-family homes
were too expensive; that Hughes Markets would be the last to give up this property if they
felt there was a potential for co~ercial use of~the property, but because Beach Boulevard
•i„'L`~ . "!2r '~L~' ~i~,'y"' ~ Ly:;e~t e~ ~ t a -~ j 3 >~4'- ~ n ~ r~ .~_.~. ~ ~ ~t t 3 -. . . r,
~ " ~
~~ a ~~
~'% !
. . . . ~ . .. ~:.
. ... . .__ . . _ . . . .. . . , .,,~.~
~ ~ .. . , . ~ ~ . . . ' . . ~ ..
, MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COIIl~fISSION, November 2, 1970
5463
RECLASSIFICATION - was now oderloaded with commercial uses as well as other intersections in
N0. 70-71-17• this general area, development of the property for co~ercial use was not
, feasible.
VARIANCE N0. 2215
(Continued) - The Commiss;on'noted that the reaidents were concerned about the noisa level
adjacent to their R-l homes and inqaired whether or not the architect felt
the placement of carports along the property line was adequate to handle
the noise level.
Mr. Rose replied that he had planned this originally but this would then place the carports
over 200'feet from the unita = therefore, he felt placing the open parking would solve this
~problem with some screened landacaping.
Chairman"Herbst noted that he would prefer seeing single-story garden apartments adjacent to
the single-family homes rather than a row:of carports with an 8-foot high wall on the property
line, :and:he felt where apartments were propoaed, Che single-family homeowners sHould be afforded
.the best,posaible protection from,any.noises emanating from this more intense uae of land rather
than providing buffering for the apartment complex itself, and since aubject property consisted
of a considerable parcel, this could be accomplished very easily since the petitioner had
commercial zoning.and was requeating another zone - therefore, he felt that if the petitioner
would.proqide one.tier of single-story apartments before any street or accessway was proposed,
this would act ae a better buffer than carports or open parking. Furthermore, the claim that
schools would be overtaxed was really no problem since the Coa~iseion had checke3 with the
school officiale vho had indicated thst apartments generated less children than a single-family
reaidential development, and that before he could conaider eubject petitions.favorably, some-
thing would have to be done to eliminate the open parking which generated amog problems as well
as noisy.traffic too close to the bedrooms of the single-family homea. '
Mr. Roae noted that he had attempted to get more green area into the center of the development,
and, therefore, the layout wae as presented. Furthermore, he would like to know why two-story
aingle-family homes were permitted but two-atory apartiuents were not permitted adjaceat to these
two..story s;ngle-family homee.
Chairman Herbst noted that there would be more apartment units exposed to tt~e rear yards and
living areas of the single-family homea, thereby creating an invasion of privacy.
Commissioner Seymour.inquired of the architect what he would pzopose es an alternative for
buffering the easterly property line.
Mr. Rose replied that he would reco~end denser landscaping with at least ten feet and trees
planted on 10-foot cenEers along the easterly wall since landscaping and trees were a greater
inhibitor of noiae than carporta. ~urthermore, the greenery was needed to provide for'cleaner
air where vehicles created odors and fumes, and thaE if the Commisaion so desired, they would
provide more landscaping'and would move the units for parking farther to the west.
Commissioner Allred noted that in the past the Planning Commission and City Council had required j
the developer to present his own step-down in zoning in the development of large parcels where
a heavier densitq was proposed adjacent to single-family homes, thus providing the buffer needed ~
within the development, and then inquired how many units would this development lose if the
driveway presently dead-ending were extended as a circular drive.
Mr. Rose replied that a minimum of six units would be lost, or as an altemative, they could ;
stagger the driveways; that most people parked in their own carports, and the only time the
open parking was used was for gueats or ~ahere apartmepts had more than one vehicle; and that
because the Coummission insisted on incl.uding the service station site, it was necessary to
increase the density to compensate for this land value.
The Co~iasion then inquired whether or not more units would be lost if additinnal landscaping ~
were provided; whereupon Mr. Rose replied that no more units would be lost. !
Lettera of opposition were read from four persons by the Planning Commission Secretary, i
THE HFARING WAS CLOSED, F
Commisaioner Gauer noted that there had been a considerable change in the area since subject ~
property had been zoned C-1, and naw the C-1 zoning was proposed for R-3 - therefore, if the
R-1 property owners were aincere that they would prefer to have C-1 over R-3, there should be ~
some kind of compromise with reference to the R-1 homeowaers to the east wherein formerly the ~
City required a developer to provide his own buffering by providing a row of single-family
homes adjacent to single-family homes, but since this would generate three to four children
per homea, perhaps the suggestion made by Chairman Herbst that single-story a~artments be
developed along the easterly property line while still providing adequate landscaping to
buffer the apartment development from the R-1 to the north might be better than single-family _
homes.
!wra~«w~s~r~+~-r - ; r 1 ~f. ;=it`u^"'' ,
- :r - / , ~ .w~~ ~~
~'~.~ .. . ._ . _ . . .. . . . , . . . _ . .. L~ .. y,, . . . . ..
':rt H: ~ . .n ~'~~ ,~.- r ~~rc J ~ -. I .,., ~ ~ ,; . r _ ,
f ^~~ t ~~ .. I
A s
> - +
~ . . ~ . .~ . . ~ . . . _ . '~1..:. ~~~~
y ",~ ...~ .~ ~ ~ . .. ~ . `~ - , ' ~ .
. MINDTES, CITY PLANNING COIyAfISSION, November 2, 1970
,.; 5464
- RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Allred indicated he would be in favor of single-atory apartments I
N0. 70-71~17.' adjacent to the R-1 to the east and the balance two-story R-3, and then 1
inquired of Mr. Roae how`much time'he would need to revise the plans incor-
VARIANCE N0. 2215 por,ating single-story along the east property line.
(Continued) .
;~ Mr. Rose noted that if one-story apartments were required along the east
side of the driveway, this would separate these units from the balance of
the proper~y; that this_ would immediately reduce the number of unita to approximately 240, which
he did not feel the developer would like, and.Ehat perhaps in lieu the Co~ission could approve
a 20-foot, lieavily-landacaped strip along the east property line. .
,,;
Commissioaer Gauer inquired of ataff what the City's experience had been in the maintenance of
a strip of land this size and length since more than just lawns would be required, and if no
information were available, some report should be prepared for the Commission before any action ~
•:}+ was taken.
Cha~.Yman HerbsC noted that this strip could help to keep car fumes away,from the single-family
homea and might be better than predently proposed.
Co~isaioner Seymour noted there were four different problem areas from his understanding of
subject petition; namely, 1) a traffic problem as to which would be the most - commerciaa or
multiple-family residential; 2) schools - this was anRwered by the Cowmiesion in which studies
had been made whereia it was determined that residents of apartments placed less of a burden
on schools than single-family homes; 3) providing some type of buffering area to protect the
single-family homeawners - this was one thing hE was vitally interested in-aince he was in the
real estate buaineas, he knew theae hoines were valued in the vicinity of $35,000 and were
located in a very fine area, as well as the fact that the agent for the petitioner offered to
provide a very heavy buffering landsceping atrip 20 feet wide, but the covered parking proposed
might not appeer to be a logical approach even though the architect was attempting to locate
covered:.parking within ;00 feet of each unit; and 4) density was the last problem area - even
though the ag;ent stated eix units would be removed to provide for proper circulation as requestei
by the Fire Chief, this might not be the density the Co~isaion was desirous of having for that
development, and whether it ahould be developed for R-3 as now proposed or C-1, the present
zoning, from his experience as a reai estate broker, these aingle-family homes would be valued
-higher if adjacent to R-3 than if adjacent to C-1 - therefore, he would be in favor of a 20-foot
strip of heavy landacaping with trees planted at 20-foot intervals, and although~he was in
sympathy with':the single-family homeowners, if eubject property were to be developed he did not
feel the propoaed R-3 development wae all that bad.
Mr. Roberta, in reeponse to Cowaission queationing regarding the necessary waivera which the
petitioner would need if the development were approved with a 20-foot landacaped strip, stated
that preaently the.only waiver necessary would be that for distance between buildinga - however,
if revised plane were aubmitted, additional waivera might become neceesary, but, again, the
architect could design a project without any additional waivera.
Mr. Roae, in rnsponae to Commiaeion queetioning, stated that if all these buildings were
attached, the waiver for separation between buildinga would become unnecessary.
Chalrman Harbst again atated that he felt one-etory garden-type apartments was a better com-
promiss since if subjecC property had R-A zoning, they would be required to provide their owa
buffer with single-family homes within the project iteelf, and aince this had been a require-
ment of other property developmente in the past, requiring it of the petitioner would not be
granting someone else a privilege not granted the petitioner, and not to require thia would be
granting the petitloner a privilege not enjoyed by other apartment developere. Thea, in
reeponee to a co~ent made by Coamisaioner Farano :3garding giving the R-1 residents lesa
proxection with garden apartmenta~ etated that in the resale of the aingle-family homes, the
one-etory garden apartmenta would give the appearance of aingle-family homea iaQnediately
ad,jacent to them.
Commissioner Farano noted that if the open parking were provided adjacent to the 20-foot drive, ,
thin would give the single-family residents a 40-foot protection which he felt was more than if !
garden apartme ts were required only 10 feet from the property line.
i ~
Coa~issioner offered Resolution No. PC70-195 and moved for its passage and ad~~ption to
recomnend to the City Council that Petition for ReclBasification No. 70-71-17 be approved,
subject to Interdepartmental Cou~ittee for Public Safety and General Welfare conditions, with
the added conditionsthar. a minimum 20-foot, heavily-landscaped strip be provided together with
15-gallon size trees planted at 10-foot cencers along the easterly property line; that the
proposed circulation be provided for the carports at the northwest corner of subject property
landscaping be~submittedttosandlapprovd~bydthe Development Services1Departmentiaandithatnthe
reclassification be approved subject to completion of the variance, with a finding that said
landscape strip and adequate circulation, together with the removal of a minimum of six units,
had been stipulated to by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) ,.
1~~,~ '
~ / w
+ '' .. ,~1;,5~,t ,~,,
. . .. . _ . .,. , , .. . . ~ ~ . ~ -~ ~ + .~ . . -
T,~;;.; :
#~~ :i ~ ~%
Nt
~
' ~ `k
~ ~ ~; ~~ ~ . .' ^
~4~ ~ .~ .,: ,~-~. .; .'~ . ..~ I . '
~ ~ • ~
ti~~x MINUTES,.CITY PLANNING C014IISSION, November:2, 1970 ; >rY
5465 ,;~
~
f~~ RECLASSIFICATION `- On roll call the foregoing resolution wae passed by the following vote: ~~
~ k NO 70 71-17- `
µ >i
° AYES: ~CO1~Il~IISSIONERS AZ1red, Farano, Gaaer; Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
~~4h(`y ~: VARIANCE~ NO:~ 2215 `. NOES: ~~~. ~~ C01~4IISSIONERS. -. : Herbst. ~ ~ ~
„~, . _ . . , . r's"
M1„ -
(Continued) ABSENT, C01~4fISSIONERS: -None. r~
'~`z~i~~ :; ' .' ' . ~ , ~ ~_.~
~ , Commissioaer Allred offered Resolution'..No PG70-196 and moved for its.passage and adoption to ~~
~~ grant;Petition foryVariance No :2215, in part, for.waivea of the distance between main buildings ~^3'
t'~ since;the petitioaez withdrew his~.request for waiver of.covered parking more than 200 feet from '`~
~- •, a dwelling uait by`the.submission.of revised plans,-and.sub3ect to providing adequate circula- i4'~
,*`~ tion~by the:removal'of a.aiinimiim.of six uaits:at the:northwest corner of the proposed develop- 4-1-
_ ment and rovidin ' ' ~'
P g:•a 20=foot, heavily-landscaped strip:adjacent to the.east property line which ~`~
shall''be planted with 15=gailon trees on 10-foot centere. (See Resolution Book) "
On roll~ call the fore oin r~`
8 g resolution was passed by the following:vote:
~' AYES'!~ CO1~Il~fiSSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer; Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
s~ NOES .`. ~CO1~ffSISSI0I~RS: Herbst;
_~.
, .. . . ,
ABSENT: COl~'AIISSIONERS::.None `
CONDITIONAL'USE - PUBLIC:HEARING, HUGHES MAgI(ETS; TNC., 2716 San Fernando Road, Los Angeles,
PERMIT N0. 1207 Califarnia,'Owner; LE ROY ROSE, 1711 Westmont Dri~ve, Anaheim, California,
~ Agent;'-reques'ting permission.to'ESTABLISH AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION "''
WITHIN 75 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONE on property described as: A rectangu- ~"'.?Fi<>
larly;shaped,.parcel of land located`at the.southeest corner of Beech Boulevard and prange Avenue ,-'k
and having`approximate frontages„ of ,200.feet:on Beack Boulevard and 150 feet on Orange Avenue. I
Propeity presently classified C-1, GENERAL COlII~tERCIAL, ZONE. ! ~;`
, i ,
~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts.adviaed the Commission that the petitioner had requested i ~
termination of subject petition, and since Ehe Cominission had passed the reclassification for ' `~
the previous:petition encompassing subject property, this peEition was no longer necessary. ~
Co~issioner~Gauer offered a motion to grant the re uest_of the ~ '`
Q petitioner to withdraw subject ~
,;petition.. Commissioner Farano seconded the motioa. MOTION CARRIED. '
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. JOHI~I R. AND GEORGE W. EHRLE, 1568 North Bernice
NO 70-71-7 Drive,.Brea,,California, Owners, INVESTORS DEVELOPMENT CORP „ 1345 North
~`" Grand Avenue, Santa Ana, California, Agent; property described as: Portion
VARIANCE N0. 2195 A- An irregularly shaped parcel of land located north and west of the
'` northwest corner of State College Boulevard and Romneya Drive, having
CONDITIONAL USE approximate-frontages of 478 feet on the west side oE State College Boulevard
PERMIT.NO. 1195 and 459 feet on the north aide of Romneya Drive; and Portion B- A rectangu- ~
larly shaped parcel,of land located at the northwest corner of State College;
° Boulevard and Romneya Drive, having approximaCe frontages of 150 feet on the ;
west side of State College Boulevard and 150 feet on the north side of Ro~meya Drive. Property
presently classified:R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE,
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MUL7ZPLE-FAlIILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE, '
REQUESTED Vt1RIANCE: WAIVERS OF (Z.) MAXIl~SUM gUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-A
PROPERTIES, (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, AND (3) '
MINIMUhi"DWELLING,UNI'S SIZE, TO:ESTABLISH A 280-UNIT APARTMENT '
COMPLEX. , ~''',-
Subject petitions were continued fYOm the August l0 and September 10, 1970, meetings for sub- '
mission of revised plans incorporating suggestions made by the Co~nission as to incorporating
the portion originally proposed for a service station and to provide better amenities for the
single=family homes existing to the west and north other than open parking, carports and '
driveways. ~
2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed for the Commission the location of subject property, ~
uses established in close proximity, the reason for continuance of the petitions, and the latestl
proposal witk reviaed plans proposing a 280-unit apartment complex encompassing the entire
vacant parcel_including that portion formerly proposed for a service station; the fact that the '
i petitioner was still proposing parking adjacent to the north and west property lines, except
c that now the petit3oner proposed.all covered parking adjacent to the property lines and did not ~
reflect single-stcsry construction of apartment units ad,jacenr to the R-1, which the Couu~ission
had requested; that the propertiea to the north backed to subject pxopertq or had their rear
yaids adjacent to subject property, whereas tl~ose pronertiea along the west aide were eide-on
5 homes with their bedrooms being only S feet from the '
proposed for bachelor units of 437.5 s uare feet ptoperCy line; that 21y', of the units were ----
4 per unit, which was more than the 425 equare
g feet considered the minimum by the Commission; and that the waiver of the two-story height ''
~
~ ~
f y g
~~r~ ~ ~ ~~C~ V~5 .+1. } .~
f
S Z :'C :.~ll _ a t, y S _ ~-~1~
' ~ ~ 1 .. '. . ~ ~ ~ . . . . r . . .
V '
MINUTES,;CITY PLANNING:COMMIS~ZON; November 2, 1970 5466
RECLASSIFICATION limitation'applied only.to the R-A properttes to the south which, in all
N0. 70-71-7 likelihood;,would be developed:for'other than single-family residential
• uses. Furthermore,.in view of the fact,that the Planning Co~ission had
~ VARIANCE N0. 2195 recommend'e`d`adoption of General P1an Amendment No. 121, subject property
' was,appropriate. for medium-denaity residential uses - therefore, the only
,~rM4i^r~ ;~~,~'tS~,t'~s'>~. 7~~~~(ci~,~~y~ rr~~a -~. ~~ ~~~ i~''_'.~+,~ .~^ ~ - ~.~ ~~~'k r~+ a
CONDITIONAL USE consideration before the Commission was whether or not the waivers requested
PERMIT N0: 1195 - were warranted:.and whether the lncation of the carports and accessways in
(Continued) auch close proximity to the single-family homes was desirable.
Mr: William Phelgs, designer of the project and representing the agent for the petition.er,
appeared before t~e Cormnission and.noted that subject petition was so similar in size and
problems facing ,it as..the property covered under the first item on the agenda that his entire
presentation wHich he had prepared,could not be presented because of these similarities; that
it-was.difficult.for.both the Co~ission and the deaigner to be faced with a condition that
was borderline;.that,there was a need for a definition of what a buffer wae - was it to shield
from.theisound, sight,.or pollution of'air and surroundings, or what; that since the last
presentation Eo-the Commission, he had presented other petitions which had no waiver being
requested;; that he knew the Co~isaion had to d~cermine liow they_could protect the adjoining
properti"es, but a 20-foot landscaped buffer strip was not always effective, nor was providing
garden apartments within only l0 feet from the property lines since the adjoining property
owners.would still be subjected to sight, sound and smell - therefore, his solution to these
probTems:was.to provi.de a 10-foot wall in the form of fhe rear of ttie carports facing.to the
R-1;which did not talse anything away from the R-1 but would afford a measure of protection.
Chairman Aerbst inquired of Mr. Phelps whether or not he had viewed a 10-foot wall from the rear
yard of a single-family home, especially where the rear yards were only 20 or 25 feet away.
Mr. Phelps stated.he had designed many units in the Anaheim area, and this would be the only
solution that would be advantageous to both the developer and the adjoiniag property owners,
especially since there were only eight homes involved in a span of 1200 feet; that most of
these homes sided on rather than faced or reared on subject property; that in order to achieve
a complete buffer from sound, noise and smell, they would have to direct to the R-3 properties
these sounds, noisea and smells, and to require protection for these eight homes would be
granting them a privilege which would not be afforded the 280 units being proposed since the
accessway proposed would be at their front door if these garden apartments were required to
be developed as the.Cou~ission requeated and furthermore isolating these units from the recrea-
tion area'and trash and laundry facilities. In,addition, the City codes were very precise as
they pertained to one-story within 150 feet.of R-lsand because of that, the proposal would have
.carports:adjaceat to the R-1 which was deemed the oaly feasible means of gi~ing both the R-1
some protection while still providing living amenities for the apartment development and
prevenEing having an asphalt jungle;.and that he did not have the extra 20 feet which Mr. Rose
had for landscaping buffering, and he was sure the Coa~ission could see the design problem
facing him as he could see the problem facing the Commission.
i`
/)
~ _
r
.~.-~
,%,
~;
ti;~
~
T~
; ~;
:<,T
Chairman Herbst noted that perhaps the Co~ission should consider this property for single-family;
homes - then there would be no problem of an asphalt jungle. -
Mr. Robert Godwin, 1900 East Rosewood Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and
noted that he, too, saw the similarities of the two petitions except taat subject property was
zoned R-A - a holding zone - whereas the previous petition was a3ready zoned C-1; that the plan
before the Co~ission, in his estimation, did not provide any b~iffer and the development was
less desirable than that presented by Mr. Rose; that the designer stated there were only eight
homes affected by the proposed development - however, he could count nine homes, five siding-~n
and four rearing-on, of which his home was one that reared-on subject property; that the bedrooms
of the homes siding-on subject property would be affected by the proposed 10-foot high carport
wall, blocking out all light and air; that at the previous hearings 87 property owners objected
to the proposal, at which time the Commission gave very specific instructions as to what they
would like to see in the revised plans - however, this was not followed except for integrating
the service station site into the entire parcel; that the current plans indicated total dis-
regard of the Coa~ission's wishes, and the placing of 38 units on a small 150 by 150-foot parcel ;
would indicate conaiderably more than 38 units per acre - therefore, maybe a gas station would
be better than this crowding of a small parcel; that at the previous public hearing he did not
expresa opposition to the aervice station but felt it would be a failure when one considered
others in the area which had failed; that the revised plans would sub,ject his property to odors
and noises from 1/+ automobiles instead of the former 7; that they indicated it would be incon-
venient for the proposed tenants of the apartments if developed in accordance with the
Comnission's requeats, yet they did not consider the inconvenience they were causing the single-
family homeowners; that since subject property was still R-A, the economics of the property
should not be considered such as had to be considered in the previous petition; that he was also
concerned with what apartments would do to the residential character of the neighborhood after
having read an article in the newspaper which indicated the entire neighborhood was deteriorat-
ing because of some of the undesirable persons renting apartments; that he nad purchased his
property knowing that the property to the south was zoned R-A, not C-1 - therefore, the adjoiaing ^
property owners in the R-1 Zone had to depend upon the.Planning Commission to provide the •
, ~- _ ~~ ~ ~~ i~.r
,'~ . _ ~ . . , . ! . ~
X~ ~,. ~ ~~.,~`+'.n~? °,-i-~~~~`s ~ s ~~ ~„"Sc ~~~k ~ ~,~?++c"~,~ v.;~a ~.., r.~ ,St ~..-.irc '~ ~ ~ ; 7 t, ) ... ~~-+%
i y = t yt
~ r ,., i ~~. ,f~ ~% ' . ,
> S .h v« e ._.
~"' ~, ~~.ti y r r 7r , 3
~-
. .,_ .:-^r . ...; ~
. . . , .„ .: . ~ ~ ~~"
. . . Y ~ . . , . .. -- , .,:
,: ;, ,
, , ,. , r' .:: ...-.. . . . ... . ~ . .
;v:.
. . . t-~- - . ~ _ 'i
. .. . ~. . ... .. ...~ . . . . .
~ . '.~ ~ ~.. . ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ . . . ~ .. . ...,
MINUTES, CITY pLANNIh~ C~ISSION, November 2,.1970
5467
`RECLASSIFICATION - protection necessary to retain the residential environment of the neigh- ~
N0. 70-71-7 ,~, borhood; and that there would-be a very dangerous Eraffic problem with I
aeople trying to make left=hend turns from Romneya Drive into 5tate
-~v. _,.~,,,..~ .w
VARIANCE .~~. $'?2~ rpf~}e~e goulevard, especially during the rush hour at 8:00 A.M. or 5:00 ~
~~; and`ine could see coastant traffic proble~qa at this intersection,
CONDZTIP.~~, scs~~; . t,:~.~:~ally if cars were attem tin to
PERMIT Nc ~15~x. P 8 gain access to subject property. ~
----N~.,~ ..a..oa
(Conti«+e~~~; :~'c ~ad~.±in further noted that the question of providing buffers had been ~
'r~ived away.by the designer with the statemerit mede that the single-family
homeowners would prefer a 10-foot wall:to a 10-foot separation, and he,
for one, would like to.state.that the single-family homeowners would prefer one-story apart-
ments as buffera since there would also be some landscaping;in the rear yard for these apart-
ments if the deaign were to be the same as used as the model in Santa Ana, although this did '
not assure there would be considerable`noiaea all of the~time; that althoagh the designer ,
felt these would be attractive apartments, they-would be most unattractive to the eingl.e-familyi
homeowners,•'~h~t`he felt open parking wauld be better than covered parking aince there would bei
less parking in the open area; and that he would recommend that the Commisaion give the
f developer-designer more time, maybe another two months, to revise their plans in accordance I
with the manner in which the Coa~iasion directed them or deny this petition with the Coa~issionl
holding the part of the single-family homeowners in giving them the protection they should be ~
given.
Mr. Jack Davis, 1925 Nor.th Grand Avenue,;.Saate Ana, developer of the proposed pro ect,
appeare3 before the Co~ission and ao~ed they were faced with a very difficuit problem which
was unique since'they had attempted to use every buffer that had been discusaed; t`nat the
complex:in Santa Ana had both.sarports, walls and living unita adjacent to the R-1; t~at
~ another project ~a}iich they had ';i'it in Anaheim hine months ago at Lincol~ ~venue and Rio
Vista Street had an open area, ,hen carports facing the open area, while other areas w~re
developed with csrports backed up to single-family.homes, and after diecussing the problem
of subject property with the City staff and becoming quite disturbed about it, he decided
to discuas this problem with the adjoining sin~le-family homeownera and in each inatance no one
seemed to be opposed to the carport walls or open parking adjacent to a 6-foot wall, some
stating that they pnrchased their homea so that they would not be living next to people
because they were around people all day long,• that aince these people did not give him tha
answer he had expected, he contacted the salea manager ~f these homes, asking him if he had
any complainta from people when they came to purchase these homes, and the salea manager
adviaed him after he saw that there was going to be a 150-foot buffer atrip with carporta and
driveways, this became a salea asset point; that all but three of ~he homea adjacent to the
parking area were sold, and from atatements made by the salesmen, these homes were not sold
because of the deaign of the home which mas not selling, not because of the location -
therefore, he felt it might be necessary to talk to other people to determine what ~rawbacka
could occur; that he felt the City's R-3 site development standards were probably the.beat
in the county since they pruvided for buffera, but as a developer theq might not like it
because i.f cut down on the coverage and made it difficulc to design a pro~ect but, neverche-
lesa, it was a good ordinance; and that the people adja~~nt to the masonry walls indicated
the cars atarting and stopp;ng did not bother them - therefoze, perhaps the 150-fout setback
wae the answer to these possible noises.
Mr. Davis further noted that he did not care for carports ae a solid well, but it was the
best buffer for sound aince it was not like open parking adjacent to a 6-foot wall, and that
the apartment development on Rio Vista Stre~t and Lincoln Avenue had very few cara which
parked in the open area, and perhaps in lfeu of having open parking adjacent to the wall,
this could be pushed back 5 feet and trEes planted in this space to provide for a greener,
open appearance which would also provide the necessary oxygen to take care of the odora and
fumes from the automobiles.
THE b::ARING WAS CLOSED,
A 7.engthy discuasion was held by the Commiasio~ regarding the fact that the pei~tioner hec~
not complied with the requests made by the Co~ission in their revision of plaas in whic~i
they determined ttie.petitioner was providing only carports around the perimeter of the properfy
sub3ecting all of these property owners to a 10-foot wall and depriving them of light and air,
particularly where the wall was only 5 feet from their bedrooms; that the Commiasion had
visited a number of apartment complexes where•carports were developed adjacent to the aingle-
family homes, and the appearance was far from devirable; that perhaps the aite development
standards should be amended to require a minimum of 10 feet of landscaping adjacent to the
property line if carports were proposed; that the previous petition also proposed a 6-foot
wall with open parking - however, the Coa~iasion had required a 20-foot landscaped aetback;
and that several of the Co~issioners stated they would not again vote for carports adjacent
to a single-family residential zone because of the undesirable appearance imposed on the
single-family homeowners,
--,,. ........ _. _.. _ . . ~
. k.,
-* _ ~' ~~~ ~
.. ~~ , T fT ~`",
~S f r~ T4
~ . _ .,_y ~
~ ,~ ~. ' ~l~ '-
~
.~ ~, ~ ..'. ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ .~ . .
MINUTES,"CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,'Novembe ~2y 1970 5468
RECLASSIFICATION Commissioner Allred offered a motion,to recommend to the City Council.
NO..'70 71"=7 ~approval,`of Petition for;Reclassification.ldo:'70-71-7,`subject to
''~ ''-' ICPS&GW conditions', :vitlis; the added" condition. that'a 20-foot, densely
VARIANCE NO 2195 ~andscaped buffer;`strip,lie provided'adjacent:to,-the R-1.homea on the
= `~ west'and,adjacent-.to the_;R,1 homes on.the north with a 10=foot atrip
CONDITIONAI: USE adjacent-Ed the R=A properties.on;the.north, said landscaping plan"s
,,, .PERMIT N0.~=1195- to be aubmitted to.:the Development•Services Depa'rEment for approval,
(Continued).' arid."said-landscaping.to include trees planted at.10-foot.centers.
` Prior to voting, the Co~ission further 3iscussed'the inotion with the
petitioner;who requested'.to.be,fieard,~offerin '
g=~ have altemate one-story apartment units
with some.open pa'rking and landscaping`of.about 7 to 10;feet.
Mr.i`Godwin~requested thet the Co~ission require•no less than what was required of the
previoua petition,.that being,a minimum of 20_feet of landscaping.
Mr..!Phelps,then asked the Commission to consider,either garden apartments or parking or
landscaping within l0 feet of the R-1 properEy lines.
The,Commission advised the developer and the:designer that in order for the Commission to
deteimine;wliether:or not his offer was within the confines of their requirements,,plans
would have;rto.be presented_£or the Commission to review:
The Commission iaquired;of Assistant'City Attarney Tohn Dawson whether or not the Commission
could"act'upon subject~petition by requiring the 20-foot landscaped buffer and the petitioner
being able-to provide either the buffer or gardea apartments.
Mr. Dawson~edvised the Cou¢nission that the Cou~ission could make the landscaping a condition
of approval'and.,garden apartments a:conditi~n of approval - however, if only landscaping
were':required, the peCitioner could not develop garden epartments in this 20-foot landscaped
buffer.- '
Co~issioner Allred withdrew his motion for approval,
, ;. - ,
Cotmniasioner Allred offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for
Reclassification'No 70-Z1-7, Variance'No.'`2195, and Conditional Use Permit No. 1195 to the
meeEiag'o£ November 16, 1970, to allow.the petitioner time to submit revised plans as dis-
cussed with,the:Co~ission. ;Commissioner'Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The;Commiasion directed tha Commission Secretary to schedule subject petitions as the first
item: on the;.agesida. -
RECESS - - Commissioner-Kaywood offered a motion to recess the meeting for ten
minutes. ;Cou~issioner Farano seconded the motion. The meeting
recessed at.4c23 P.M:
RECONVENE - Chairman Herbs~t reconvened the meeting at 4:35 P.M., all Commissioners
being present.
CONDITIONAL USE -,CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ROBERT W. ORR, ET AL, 1931 Port Nelson Place, ~
PERMIT N0. 1205 Newport Beach, California, Owners; FRED KAHLEN, JR., 11692 Steele Drive,
Garden Grove, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A
CHURCH AND DAY SCHOOL IN AN EXISTING STRUCTURE on property described as; ~'~'
A rectangulaxly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 111 feet on the south f
side:of South Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 156 feet and being located i
approximately 250 fe.et west of the.centerline of.State College Boulevard, and further des- '
cribed.as 1906 East Sauth Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. "
Subject petition was continued from,the meetings of September 21 and October 19, 1970, to
allow the petitioner time to submit plans for development of the property.
Zoning Supervisor.Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, uses established
in cloae p~roximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the present proposal to '
utilize the existing assembly area for church chapel purposes,and the supplemental letter
from the peti.tioner indicated Ehe prospective purchasers proposed to live in the exiating i
residence, usi•ag xhe existing chapel building for a church and day school; that the petitioner:
indicated there would presently be 20 to 25 persons in the congregation with only three school;
chi).dren at the present time, and it.was anticipated there would be six to seven students and
perhaps 30 church members within the next year; that the petitioner proposed to leave the area;
behind the church and house in lawn to be used as a parking area on Sundays and as a play area~
for children during the week raEher than having an asphalt area; that a two-car garage would
f . ..-
~,
•~
~ .--~'~--~-` _ `" ~ ~ ''' ~~: , ~ -:.~:}~
, 4 - ~'"
~ ~
~ ,- ` ~
MIN[1TES, CITY PLAIQNING COI~AiISSION; November,:2„ 1970 5469
CONDITIONAL USE :be built some time in the futur.e at'a location permitted by Code; that•
PERMIT N0:~.1205 : th'e;petitioner requested that;;the:6-fooE:mesonry wall proposed in the
(Continued) . Interdepartmental CommiEtee reco~endations be deleted and,:instead,
permit the"existing hedge along the property.line to auffice;`that the
: petitioner:was"also proposing to landacape gnd grade the front ard'in
accordarice wiEh the Planning Co~ission's.previous object.ions and in accordance with`the -
Interdepartmental Committee•re.commendations;c,that.as pointed out.in the.o:iginal staff report,
ttie zoning`history of ,tfie property~to:the~east might haqe;some idfluence upon whether this.
peEition should-be granted siace approval of the on-sale beer and wine'was predicated on the
fact that.the then existing church and day:school use would be terminated on subject property;
and;that:Ehe Co~ission,would.have.to`determine whether or not.the proposed use of suhject
property.and.tlie existing.on-sale beer and wine would:be compatible uses, and if this were so,
the;;Commission~might wish to consider:'the request to'use the,grass For parking and delete the
recommended wall..
No'one appeared to represent the petitioner.
THE:$EARING WAS.,CLOSED.
Mr. poberts advised the Commiasion that if.they wished to conEinue their deliberations on
subject petition until later in the meeting, he would attempt to contact the petitioner.
Chairman Herbst inquired whether the Commission had any questions to ask of the applicant.
, There was no response:from the`Commission.
Commissioner ATlred offered Resolufion-No. PC70-197 and moved for its.passage and adoption ~
to'deny.Petition for Conditional Use_Permit:No. 1205 on the:basis that the proposed use was
deemed incompatible with the adjoining_co~ercial land.use and would be iri direct violation
o£ the Coa~ission's past.policy of not,permitting,church and.school:operations in close
proximity;of on-eale beer and wine,establishaienta;;that the proposed land use would adversely
affect the~adjoining land uses aad_giowth and developmenti.of the area; and that the petitioner ;
• was`not preaent fo;.submit substantiating evidence that the proposed use was appropriate for
the axea: '(See Resolution Book) -
On roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the:following'vote:
AYESo ,~COPAfISSIONERS: 'Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour, Herbst.
NOESr~ COIIliISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COi~AtISSIONERS: None.
RECLASSIFICATION :- CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. WILI.IAM B, AND ELSIE M. PURDY, 161 East
N0, 70-71-12 Orangethorpe Avenue, Placentia, Califoraia, Owners; H.M,S. AIR CONDITION-
` ` ING CORP„ 760 North Main Street, Suite D, Orange, California, Agent;
9ARIANC& N0. 2203 property described'as: An irregularly shaped garcel of land consisting
of approximately one acre, having a fronta e of a
8 pproximately 250 feet
on'the north side of Placentia Avenue, having a maximum depth of approxi-
mately 318 feet, and being located approximately 530 feet east of the centerline of State
College Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM HEIGHT ti1ITHIN 150 FEET OF AN R-A ZONE,
(2) MINIMUM LAND AREp, pER DWELLING UNIT; (3) MINIMUM FLOOR
AREA PER DWELLING U23IT, AND (4) MINIMUNi REQUIRED PARKING SPACES,
TO ESTABLISH A 50-UNIT APARTMENT COMpLEX.
Subject petitions were continued from the meetings of September 10 ar.d October 5 and 19,
1970, in order to allow the petitioner time to consider revision of plans and for staff to
review the reviaed plans. _
'Loning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, uses estahlished
in close proximity, and Che proposal with revised plans to establish a 36-unit apartment
complex, whereas SO units originally were proposed; that all parking was proposed in a
depreased`parking plan with at least 50% below.grade; that the petitioner had requested a
waiver to.permit two-story apartment construction within 150 feet of the R-A property to the
east and weat and the R-A zoned trailer park to the north; and in all likelihood these
properties would not be developed for single-family residential purposea; that the petitioner
was proposing one dwelling unit for every 1093 square feet of net land area, whereas Code
would require a minimum of 120Q square feet, and the original plan submitted praposed 900
square feet; that the petitioner propoaed two bachelor units having 525 square feet each,
asebein tee Commiasion's policy in the`past permitted 257. of the units and 425 square feet
g ppropriate for bachelor units; that the petitioner was now meeting Code parking
requirements, and the originally advertised waiver waa no longer necessary except that the
. -;.:+•;;
-; j
{:a
...., .,~. ;
. .. ..
~ : ~: - ~' ~ .~.-:. . .. ..-
. . . -. _, ,:. .
. . . ~ . ,... .-,. ~,~: . .
~ ~
MINUTES;.'CITY PLANNING.CONAfISSION, November:2, 1970~. 5470
,:~ ,,
. '` , _
;<,;: . ..., . _
RECLASSIFICATION:j'.- most_recent revised plans did;not p'royide adequate'corner cut-offs on
N0:'70-71-12 .
the;`accessways; but the':petitioner had"indicated this could be resolved -
'' '.'' therefore,!;the primary consideretion'before;.the Coi~ission was-one of
VARIANCE:NO. 2203 land use:,,aince.the General•Plan designated this entire area,as being
(Continued) appropriaEe for:cos~¢nercial'office uses,°,and the R=3 Zone would appear
inappiopriate in~,such'ari area and may,;conflict w'ith.any future commercial
~' office•uses that"might develop.° However, if.Ehe Commissioa determined
that the:land use:was appropriate, then the;':primary.question would be whether'or not.the
,.: waiver for'minimum site-area:per dwellirig unit,was;appropriate.
Mr. R S Jones; 128.East KaEe11a Avenue, Orenge,'designer of the project, appeared before
~ the:Cou~ission and noted that they had originallg.planried.75 units which would.be similar to
the Ray Rough project,and had;later reduced it`to;50 uniEs - however, now the;plan was pro-
posed for 36 units, and~`they,had attempted_.to adhere to all the regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance;.that Eh~y had provided the necessary circulation for fire protection purposes;
that ttieir method of computing:the amount of;.area=available for;dwelling unit'differed from
that,of tlie staff;,and:this was fhe'reason'far the difference and need'for the waiver; that
they,were'planriing only;two bachelor:apartmenis of S25 square feet, and all the balance of
the'units.would be above the minimum requirement; that.-he felt.ttie exiating deaignation on
the?General Plan for coadnercial office zoning would"not be appropriate since there would be
more'conflict'of Eraffic flow from an o£fice`building than there would be from an ai~rtment
development, and since his office was.in an office;building similar to that conside~;~ for
subject property; he knew of the traffic problems..that could be'involved; and that ha~ was
available Eo answer any questions.
The;.Commission inquired'whether a colored rendering he was presenting would be the maaner in
which'the building would'appear when constructed.- '
Mr.:Jones'.replied that-fhe plan would still-maintain the arch concept, buE parking would go
below the 5 to 6-foot berm proposed in this facility.
No one appeared in os. .•.,tion to subject.petitions.
I ~ THE HEARING'WAS CLOSED.
, .. ;,.,...
~ ,, ,
Commissioner Faract!s offered Resolution'No. PC70-198 and moved for its passage and adoption
~, to reco~end'to Ehe'City'.Council that Betition for Reclassification No. 70-71-12 be appxoved,
aubject to;.conditions.. .(See'Resolution Book)
i On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by.the following votec
~ ' AYES: - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour, Herbst.
( NOES: CO1~tiSSIONERS: None.
i . ABSENTa C02~4IISSIONERS: None.
I Commiasioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC70=199 and moved for its passage and adoption
to'grant Petition for Variance No..2203, in part, deleting the waiver for minimum required
parking on the basis that revised plans indicated adequate parking was being provided, and
subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COrIl~tISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour, Herbst.
NOES: CO2~ASISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIOt3ERS: None. ~`~
VARIANCE N0. 2210 - PUBLIC HEARING. CRESCENT SOUTHERN BApTIST CHURCH, 622 North Gilbert
Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; ROBERT L. SMALLWOOD, 213 Courtney
- P1ace, Fullerton, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MAXIMUM ~
PERMITTED SIGN,AREA on property`describcd 3s:, A rectangularly shaped parcel of land consist-
ing of approximately 1.9 acres, having a frontage of approximately 132 feet on the east side
of Gilbert Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 630 feet, and being located
approximatel3~ 330 feet north of the centerline of Crescent Avenue, and further described as
622 North Gilbert Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
! Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, uses established
in close proximity, and the pr.oposal to erect a 32-square foot sign on R-A property to identify
the existing church; that the petitioner indicated that if subject petition were approved, the
existing.sign would be removed and placed in the center of tfie property.
Mr. John Jackson, 2421 Glenoaks Avenue, Pastor of the church, appeared before the Commission ~~~
and noted that they were closed in on each side with apartments; that Gilbert Street dead-
ended north of them and no through traffic was permitted; that the reason for requesting the i
i
~'i:;, ~f..[;.,, ,...
;. .._..,-
_.. _;, .. ... ,_ ~.
,.~. ._,
-,.~
.
,. , ..
r, -
~~ ~ r~
. ~ . ~;J
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COM1fISSION, November 2
1970
`
~ _ ~
,
_
. . , . , _ < , ..
. - 5471
.
. ~.
~
~. '. '
:
~
'
'
. ~ ~ . ~;
,
,
.
~
_ , .
. .
.-
. . , : . .
. ~
VAR3ANCE NO 2210~ signing proposed iaas to'alert people:coming.,up Crescent.Avenue and Gilbert
s£ontinued) Stieet of
th
l
a :5
~,
_
e
oc
tion of the>churcfi:in;sufficient time to turn in; and
• . - that b ,.. , _
.
~
., y placing the sign`8 feet
off the
ro
,
. ,
.
g
und, this would keep it away
from the children who would be'.climbing it'and possiD~ly destroying it
since it would be.:located ad
ecent to,th
ch
' ~
`~^
~
e s
ool;bua st,,~~
.,
•
'
` ''
.
:
, : ' : 'h:r
No oae a eared in o " "
PP pposition fo subject petition. _ '`'
rwr
THE.~:HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~ ~.:
.
; ;.; :,,,. . , , _ . "
Co~issioner Seymour inquired whether.`or not:the church.would be permitted a larger sign if
it were oniother
than
R ;A
r
r ~ ~;
`~~
~
.
~
,p
ope
ty.
~. - :':. ; ~ ,~,i~
~ Chairman Herbst noCed that.churchea weie permitted in any.zone, and the`signing would be in
accordance•;with the zone ~i;
;~
,established-.on the;property; therefore, if a church were located in
ttie R 1 Zone, it would`
need -a variance
'for an
'
i ;~;
,
.
y
s
gn,
Commissioner Kaywood noted that with.the tower spire on the church, she could'not see any
reason for having
ysign,
aince
c
m
,
.
no,one
ould
iss thia church .
, .. . property.
•
- Reyerend Jackson noted that in._driving by ~any people would not note this was a church
because of'Ehe
a
~
'
m
ny apartments
located 4n this area; that since~h~ was in the ministry he
became more:aware of the-fact;that signing
was im
o +
-
p
rtant.since.many people droye by and
did;not look for,a church; and,that it was.important that people`co
ing
u
C
s
~ ~~
m
.
p
re
cent Drive
would see,the location
of ttie,church-before going by Gilbert St
eet
~
r
..
` •, ~~
.
Comuissioner Kaywood-•inquired whether or not the church had many'drop-in.attendants.
~
'?
Reverend Jackson replied,,in the affirmative, noting that they had made a,survey of other
churches and £ound'that
h ~e
w
ere a church.had adequate signing, ttiey:had an average of forty
~isitors per Sunday,,whereas.~they only`had a few, that b
i
a ~
`
e
ng
pproximate~V rour. ' `
Co~issioner Kaywood.noted that`as she was driving up Gilbert.Street the spire was very
readily evident, therefore
it came a
,
i
a ~~
,
s
qu
te
surpriae to`her that Che church:would.request
a sign larger than;_that permitted by Code. _
f '
•?i
Reverend Jacksoa replied that with a 4'by 5-foot'si
be used
an'd it
uld
was th
i
i
gl
h
c
e ~ ~
,
,
e
r
ntent to use twelve-inch
etters for
a,portion of
the
property
and to utilize the balance of tfie sign for a r
d
rbo ~ y,
'
ea
e
ard type of advertising.
~ ~.~
Commiasioner Gauer inquired of etaff how many churches had,the readerboard type sign that
measured 32.square feet. i
Mr. Roberts replied that many churches in the city had signs larger than 20 square feet,
but these signs were approved at th
ti
e ~
e
m
the conditional use permit was granted, and subject
church had been developed prior to requiring churches to be developed
b
e
o
d i
su
ject t
con
approval of
itional use permit. '
Co~iseioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC70-200 and moved for its passage and adoption ,
to grant Petition for Variance No. 2210, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution.was passed by the following vote: ~
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:. Allred, Gauer,.Rowland, Seymour, Herbst.
NOES: COMriISSIONERS: Farano, Kaywood. ,
ABSENT:. COrIItISSIONERS: None.
~ ;
VARIANCE N0, 2216 - PUgLIC HF~,RING. EARL HAItDAWAY, 219 Poinsettia, Corona del Mar, California,
Owner; DAVID S, COLLINS, 1077 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, Agent;
requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES TN THE C-R ZONE TO ESTABLISH A CARWASH,
u.4S PUMpS, AND MINOR TUNE-Up FACILITIES IN CONJUNCTION [~ITIi AN EXISTING AUTO RENTAL AGENCY on
pr-operty described as; A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximatel~
la0 feet on Katel2a Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 130 feet, and being located
approximately 565 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, and further descrfbed as
711 West.Katella Avenue. ProperCy presently classified C-R, COMMERCIAL-RECREATION, ZONE.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the agent for the petitioner had'
requested a four-week continuance of subject petition in order to present a substantiated need
for the proposed request.
Co~issioner Rowland offered a motion to continue coasideration of Petition for Variance No.
2216 to the meeting of November 30, 1970, to allow the petitioner time to prepare background ~
information for his proposed request. Co~issioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED. -
i
i
_ i ,.
,
;~
-;: -
,,; , ,, ,.. ... , _. .
° =~ _ ~ .
, :; ~
MINUTES, CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION, November 2, 19]0 - 5472
:, , ° _ • . ~ ~
,. • . .
RECLASSIFICATIUN - PUBLIC HEARING. .VIOLET VAN-DELDEN, MAgGAgET%GREEN,,AND Hr' H. HAASE,
N0;.70 71=18 230 Castle`Circle; Orange,,California,,Owners; BURGER:KING,:2101 South
. ,. _ .
Atlantic Boulevard,•Los:'Angeles;,Califoraia,,Agent;'requestirig t6at
- ~ _ property described as A rectangularly..shaped parcel of land havin a
frontage of approximately 193:feet~on`State Colle e'Boulevard .havin g
8. ,, g a maximum,.depth of
approximaEely 190;feet; ,and.beingz,located approxiwately:500 feet''south-.of the,centerline of
~ Sycamore;Street,;and.furthei deacr'ibed as:404,North.State:College.Boulevard be reclassified
frorii the R=A,'AGRICULTURAL;'ZONE to;the C-1; GENERAL CdMMERCIAL;_,ZONE. `
Zoning Supervisor.,:Charles Roberts advised~the Commisaion that subject,petition-would.have to
be,~readvertised;ainc2 information,originally;submi'Eted in the filing of the'reclassification
petition indicated the address'of 404.'North.State.College.BouTevard; however, this:was in-
cor=ect •therefore, the'readvertiseinent ia:the newspaper. -.
Co~iasioner Allred offered a motion Eo continue consideration of Petition for Reclassificatio
~ No. ,70 71;18 to>,the.meeting of'November 16, 1970;-in order'to:allow time to;readvertise the
petition,':;correctly indibatingrthe location of.the.property ' Commissioner Farano seconded the
moEion MOTION:CARRIED;'.~
REPORTS AND. - ITEM N0. 1.
RECOlA1ENDATIONS' CONDITIONAL USE:PERMIT N0, 1063 (C. M. McNees) - Request for
'extension oE tifle - Property located on the north side of
KaEe1la~Avenue ad~acent`to.,the_.KaCella Avenue:overcrossing.
Zoning Supervisor;Chsrles Roberts presented a'request from Mr. Clarence McNees for a orie-year
extension of time'for.use,of the building,for,<shows, eatertainment; d~ncing; on-sale liquor,
etc ; noting that%when ttie conditional:use permiE!was;nriginally approved by the Planning
Commission on October°29; 1968,:it was subject to.requiring dedication for street widening
~: purposes at such.~ime as:was'deemed necessary, and after one year the:DevelopmenE Services
Department was to,review the.uses which were established and the parking as developed to
determine whether:.;a riew,,pubTic hearing,before the_P..lanning.,Cou~ission was'necessary, and if
no public hearing were.deemed`necessary, the petitioner.could be granted.a one-year extension
of time subject..to.approyal of:fhe Co~iasion:
Mr.:Roberts;.further noted-that:the Development Services Department staff on October 23,,1970,
had discussed witH;,the Police Depar ent the activiEies om subject property, and it was their
indication'.that there were no polic,~probleiae;presented.with the present operation. There-
fore, the staff would reco~anend another one=year exfension of time, to expire October 29, '
19Z1:
Coa~issioner Rowland offeied a motion to granE a one-year extension of ti.me for the use
approved'under Conditional Use Permit No: 1063, said,time extension to expire October 29, i
: 1971.. Covmnissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. i
i
ITEM N0. 2 ~:
CONDITTONAI:-USE PERMIT N0. 1072 (C. M. McNees) - Request for
extension'of time - Property located at the southeast corner
of Haster Street and MaRChester Boulevard.
Zoning Supervisor.Charles Roberts presented a request from the Greyhound Lines Anaheim agent, '
T. N. Bristow, for a one-year extension of-time for the use of subject property, noting that
the.original approyal wes:granted in November,,1968 and a one-year ~xtension of time was i
granted on January 12, 1970, retroactive to.November~4, 1969, said one-yeax time extension
'expiring November 4, 1970; that the.one-year extension of time previously granted by the
Planning Commission was subject to the installation of on-site floor-lighting by the peti-
tioner with?n.thirty days of the.Commission's`approval - however, staff has reviewed the
use and deteimined that;subject`use had no apparent ~eleterious effect on the area, parking
appeared to be adequate, and the Engineering Division had Yndicated no dedication for Haster
Street.was needed at this time since the ultimate alignment of Haster Street had not, as yet, :.
been det~rmined by the City or the State Division of Highways. Therefore, staff would recom- I
mend that a one-year extension of time.be granted effective November 4, ].970, to expire
November 4, 1971, at which time the Commission again would review the criteria established ~
under the original'resolution.
Commissioner Farano offered a motion to grant a one-year extension of time for the use under I
Conditional Use Permit No. 1072, §aid time extension to expire November 4, 1971, at which
time the Co~ission would review`the criteria established under the original resolution to
determine whether the use should be continued: Coa~issioner Seymour seconded the motion.
MC~TION CARRIED.
s ~`.
I ,: --.. .. ~ ",;'•r :}~f
~ y . ~. . ~..
.. . '. ~ ..
~
~
~ ~ ~~
:Y`.~.
.•
1
. ...
,.
_
' .:. ..~ ~ .. ~ . : t~
~:t
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COt~fISSION, November 2;_1970
, 5473 4'
REPORTS AND> - ITEM N0. ^s-~' `-.'~
RECOI~IENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0; 1130;(Martiri`Luther Hospital) - _
I ~~:
(Continued) . ` Request for~an additional=ninety days~for completion of • 4~~
~,
conditional'-,dedication ;Propeity lcoated on~the souEh side .~
;'
~ of, Romneya :Dri~ e,_,;approximately;820 feet. west `of the center- "'~
line bf
`Euc13d' Street "~'~
.
. ~ . ~ . ~ . ~rF:
' Zoning Sapervisor,Charles~Roberts presented `a reque'st from the Eaecutive=DirecEor of Martin a~`
= LuCher Hospital for an extension of time in which~.to meet'the condition of,,
dedication of
~ s~
.
Romneya Drive~as required:by
tlie Co~aiesion in their:granting a one-year.extension of.time
t
ex
i
n
~ }~~,~
'
o
p
re A
gust 21, 1971; and this was based?on
.the:fact`that the'peEitioner had been ~
'
'
working'with staff;-to comply with this condition of dedication as:required by:the original ~
.
1;}~
reso,iution;,.therefore,:staff-woald reco~end that an'additional ninety days
' period of time =^~
:
in wtiich to •meet Conditi`on No. :1 be
granted.~ -- "~
,
.,
_ ~+~~w
. ~;
Commisaioner Farano offered.a motion to grant an.additional ninety days for the completion
' '?
of;conditional
:_dedication of.Romr•^.ya Drive'required under,Condition No. l of Conditional Use
Permit.,No.,1130, said time extension to expire January 21;`1971.. Commissioner Kaywood
,-:
seconded the motion.~ MOTION CARRIED:,
ITEM N0:-4 -
Clarification of amendment to Title 18-2oning, Chapter
18.68; Variances.
Zoning Supervisor'Charles.Roberts inquired of the Commission whether or not their resolution '"~~~
"
approbirig amendmenE to Title 18; Chapter 18:68,.Variances, included deletion of the use .
°=~
variance•as;seC forth in.Seaate Bill No: 23 of Section~65906 of tfie State Zoning Act since ~ ~~::
staff'was.not sure whether'or.not this:was includ'ed:and",had been a last-minute addition to
'
~`~
the' recou~ended amendments to Chapter 18.68. r,-
, .,.;;;.
Assistant ¢ity Attorney John Dawson advised the Co~ission that all general cities had abused .;:1~
the use variance and for,.them this requireinent would be necessary-"- however, the City of ;
';
r Aaaheim, being a cherter city,'was not required to amend their zoning ordinance'to incorporate ';`
this;^and it might:be wise to xetain the use`'variance in particular.properties where Che need
was necessary,rather than having•the:ione.changed on';the property to accommodaEe a very minor
`
,;
use
and it;_would be hi"s recommendation to-the Commission that Senate Bi11 No. 23 not be
~:._ ~~~'
incorporated;into the amendments to the variance procedure.
, • -
- :;
<.
,
Discussion was held by the Coimnission relative to Senate Bill No.` 23, it being determined , ,
that the City of Anaheim;had elected to rule itself to give the local citizens the opportunity
'
'
to rule th
emselves'rather than as a general law, and that th~ few instances in which the use
variance might be used could,be reviewed by the Planning Co~ission to determine whether the
use would be appropriate in a given area.
i
Coimuissioner Rowland offered a motion to advise the staff that it was the Commission's intent
not to include Senate Bi11 No. 23.in Section b5906 in their amendment to the variance sectinn
of the Anaheim MunicipaT Code, Section 18.68. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
~ ITEM NO. 5 1
RECLASSIFICATION N0, 68-69-98, VARIANCE N0, 2097, TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT NOS. 7003, REVISION N0. 1, AND 7115 - Review of ~
plans - Property located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon '`~'~
Road, east of Solomon.Drive. •
Zoning Supervisor Charlea Roberts noted that several meetinga ago the Planning Co~nission
determined'.that any development in the canyon-should have submission of plans to the Council ~
for approval prior to the granting of.any extension of time,'and the plans before the
! Commission'were for an R-1 tracE.formerly approved by the Planning Commission November 3, ~
1969, subject to conditiona.
_
After reviewing the plana with.staff, Commissioner Allred offered a motion to recommend to j
the City.Council that development plans as presented under Reclassification No. 68-69-98,
Variance No. 2097, and Tentative.Map of Tract Nos. 7003, Revision No. 1 and 7118 appeared
to meet the intent of Ehe Planning Commission in their approvaL of the tract maps.
' Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
i
~, _.
fF~," 'N1 1 W.ziry..6' &~"'.~#.1.~'~~~t:~M J.I~A'w F~.P4..^`f;~l~X/ .~' ~}'lF*N,~ 4.~f~'.:. S
- t ~ ~J
bK ~
~~ ~
~~ ~ ~
~~ ~
r ~'
~ . . .
MINUTES~ CITY'PLANNING_COMMISSION~ November;
,2,.1970 :
y
:~
~
~
' .
.
5474
~ '
` ~
~
;xx'
~ REPORTS AND ITEM NO 6: ,
, i
t-g*+
~~ RECO~~il.'+NDATIONS REClASSIFICATION NO 68 69 28 AND TRACT ~ N0, 4476
REVz'SION N0
3- t
:
En~fx
j'~L ,
,
(Continued)',' Request for approyal of_plans ,',.Property located between`Riverdale
~ Av
n
d~' , ~,.
~r
r e
ue an
• ,. .
AddingEon Driye, aest of Redrock'Street:- '"
.
~
`
~-
~ ;. ; , ; ,
,; Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts presented p1Ena for three subdivisions on both sides of
ltive
d
l
'
~ t ~~
.~?:"
~
~~ ;
r
a
e
~Avenue,:
a, requirement of the City; Council in : their approval of an .extecision of
time for the completion of the~,reclassification~and said t
'
~ ~;~~
"
~-~~`
rYw
r;~'7~ ract.
:
; ': ~ :. , .
The:Commiaeion revi~..~3,'the proposed~plana with staff,and`upon its conclusion -Commissioner
~
Allred offered a~moti
t
d .
~;
~~~'~=
,
,
on
o approve
evelopment plans under Tract No. 4476,.indicating it
would appear these plans;met the intent of`Eh
C
rmn , y
y
ti~t_;
i
e
o
ission in approving the Eract mAp.
Co~issione; Farano seconded Ehe motiiit MOTION CARRIED, ' s
~:?~
.
.. .
.
. . .:
' . ..'
. . ~ ~ . . '
~ ~+
,
;
:
..
' . .
. ,
~ ITEM N0, 7.. :4
ROUT REEWAY
Assistant Development Services:Director Ronald Thompson advised the.Commission that the
ataff
'
in V{
y was
•
the process:of developing an analysis of the:four, alternatives proposed under
the:Route.;39 Freeway, and whem;.this•.report was
brou
ht to
t
i
,~
~
, ,
g
comple
ion,
t would be presented
' to' the ~Planning,_Co~ission. aad City
Council- who would have to mak
rec
a
o "
~
,
e a
o~end
ti
n to the
State,.that an informational meeting.had been held by the State last week describing a
mbe
~ ~.
nu
r.of;items which might be of interest to'
the`Commission, and on Wednesdsy, November 18,
at']:30 P
M
at A
h
im
~
`~
.
,
na
e
Union High
School euditorium this would be,presenEed if the Commissio
desired to"'attends. Furtheimore a Freewa
~ '~:•>
~ Thuraday,'Friday,;'and Satdrday,,~November 9,~20e and 2lbeand FridayeandPSaturdaypiNovemberr27 y
and 28,if anyone;wished to revicw this to geE information: '
t . ie
'
ADJQURNMENP - There being no further ousiness to discusa, Commissioner Gauer ofsered ~.
~'
a motion..to~temporarily.adji>urn the meeting'to November 5, 1970, for a , '°y;
work session at 7:00 P.M.: Co~issioner Kaywood seconded xhe motion.
MOTION CA
RIED
~~ ~
*
R
.
~. ~ s.,~:Q~~ ; .s
° 'Respectfully submitted, ~
,
" /~ , i
~i[iy7---7 i~% ''2.E ~.,, = ~
ANN
KREBS
Secre a
t
i .
,
ry
. Anaheim City Planning Gommission ~
i
I
i
_
~
i
~
~
`
~
I
~
',~~
:
_:-:
'
;
a - ~~fc L?2 - . P ;cm - "~ ~~ ~. yrs~ "L.r~",M j r i~ 4b~ ~` `
;~ ~ G ~n~ f S k y . ~.'` 'k _ .~'4" ts'lp'~ ~, `~,?'SJ n ~ ~ ~ ,~'~ f~ ~~ k c ~'t$, ~
J~ ~ "' },r Ac !'~ ~ . '~'k ~w.{'t- y^4 R ~ ~ Y ~
; ~a . .yt~° r~, . ~ ~ ~..~p ~M.'. . ~'''~ 4 3.n ~k• ~ ~? . reZ ~",aYe~ y
fi '.e~` ~~~''~ ". ,"U- ~ -ri t t h, ,y +~~„jx a i ~~
+~~'v~~ o
*A3' .at k~ t~ '~ ~' ~ ~-,~r ~" ~ ~`'* z ~~ y~z :~"a ~
1 ; , ~ . ~~x~ ~ ~ ~ t ~3 i w~ ~~~~..~'~~~a~}.~~t~~ Y y t
. ~~ +se ;~ y,~~.'~~ ,. i~,~ ~~~ ~,~~.~~,~~~~~~~~;: ~~~'$.' ~ ~rr ~
n,~- .~i ~ ~ r. ,~qr .~,n ,p, ~ k :
;= ~ • , ~
~'SC~ ~ '`~~g j ` y} S& ~~,` ~~~°''~~,rc ~~,iLi~~'- "~~ ys' ~; r.,~~~~ -
~~~ 7~.1 5M. . a , . `G ~~s~ : a '-~'S}.9 ,' f~n.~~tir~ ~~ ~ ~ i r~ ~f~•-~~.+~~FNSy ~ro .r 4+ r.
x~a i,y ~2.~~~~'' ~:ra~•a: e~r`'~ F~.~ ~ 1
1.M~~{ ` ~ 1 ~ - I` ~ . ~
,~,( .,. +~, nx~ rl t ~
~ .e
~ • .
~~^I ( y ~ L'~'°~ f~~'~y ,~~~~:5.y,~ Y v` ~F~'~~~'~~4,~'~'~k~~~p~~~~ ~.
. ' ~ .K- ,/Y' ~, ,
, '~k`~ ' ~, a . aa >. ~ 1
y~. ' Srr~.w ~ ~:x ~'~
' .~'' ~r;~~ e . ~~ry ..~~ia ' t t~A s,y wL f?., r r.:
.. ~ ~ ' V ..ra.. :~*..:. .^ ~ . .~•S~ ...;`L. ~ ~ - '
. - is3 v.. • .. ~...*~'.._:~ -.,.. :.: 7'' ..:e,w: ~
..,+..~ ,~3,,~.'~'~~..t~ . .,:~-r~;Lf`h t , ~,.:,.,,yic."'.^5`"2'_:3s•`~ti. ' "'..~~4 .
:_.
_'. :. -;.... .-. . ~ - -- .
~..., . ;~, ._ -C~ ~~ .. r,~
, _,.
::- .:;:_. C 4 . :',
_,-;,.=,e,,,.,
, ^'S '
C
_~