Loading...
Minutes-PC 1971/06/14; * • ,~ _ ~ ~ , :_ ~ , ~. _~ ~ ~ City Hall Anaheim, California June 14, 1971 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE P_NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION , ,~ ,: , a .:; `;•,;,':;; ~-. :;~ i'°' 1~`ci ;, .~c ~;. s:: ,"r REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission MEETING was called to order by Chairman Herbst at 2:00 P.M., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Herbst. - COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Rowland, Kaywood, Seymour, Allred, Farano. ABSENT - CGMMISSIONERS: None. ' PRESENT - Assistant Development Services ilirector: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attarney: Frank Lowry Office Engineer: Jay Titus Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts Assistant 2oning Supervisor: Malcolm Slaughter Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Farano led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the ALLEGIANCE Flag. APPROVAL OF - Minutes of the meeting of May 17, 1971, were approved with THE MINUTES the following corrections on motion by Commissioner Kaywood, seconded by Commissioner Seymour, and MOTION CARRIED: Page 289, paraqraph 4, should read: "Mrs. Jan A. Pippinger read an editorial from the Santa Ana Reqister by Sam Campbell praising private schools. She was ruled out of order several times but refused to leave the podium. Page 294, last paragraph, line 1, should read: "Commissioner Seymour indicated he wanted to depend upon the City Council". Rage 300, paragraph 12, line 1, delete Kaywood; line 2, insert Kaywood. AREA DE'VELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING. (READVERTISEMENT) INITIATED BY THE PLAN NO. 93 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Callfornia; to reconsider Area Development Plan No. 93 and to review secondary circulation of properties ].ocated on the south side of Broadway between Euclid and Fann Streets. •VA'RiANCE NO. 2262 - CONTiNVED P'UBLIC HEARING. PAUL ACKERMAN, 1146 Civic CenteX Drive West, Santa Ana, California, Owner; WALLACE WARREN~ 625 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES TO ESTABLISH A REAL ESTATE OFFICE IN•,A RESTDENTIAL STRUCTURE WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES AND (2) MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 86 feet on the south side of Broadway, having a maximum depth of approximately 96 feet, and being located approximately 202 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street, and further described as 1718 West Broadway. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. Subject var~.ance was continued from the meeting of June 2, 1971, in order to allow time for staff to readvertise Area Development Plan No. 93. Assistant 2on±ng Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter inquired whether or not the Comm#.ssion wished to consider both Items 1 and 2 together since No. 2 was dependent upon item l; whereupon *_he Commission concurred these should be considered together. 71-363 . ~ .- ...._ .. --- ~':,.•,x~ , - - . M1b . d ~.. .....--• - - _ - • ~~ ~- -- . , l.. ~ 1 ~ C.U t.~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 3une 14, 1971 71-364 AREA DEVELOPMENT - Mr. Slaughter then reviewed Area Development Plan No. 93 PLAN N0. 93 as set forth in the Report to the Commission and the two exhibits, noting that ExhiLit "A" proposed a 20-foot VARIANCE NO. 2262 alley along the southerly boundary of the three properties (Continued) in the study area which r.ould exit to F~nn Street, or if permission were given by the owner of the commercial . property to the east, allow vehicular access across said property; however, in contacting the tenant of the commercial property to the east, he did not appear to be interested in any proposal giving access across his property. .~ ~ Exhibit "B" was then reviewed which indicated using a common drive to be ;i':; c`-~.'~ developed to serve the two easterl yards of the Y Parcels and providing access to the rear ..; properties, while access from the westerly parcel could be gained ~ ;:~ from Fann Street. ;'; ~ Mr. Slaughter then reviewed the request of Variance No. 2262 to utilize an ~`. ~i existing residential structure both ~s an office and home by adding a 405- :` square foot office area to the front of the existing structure, said addition being located approximately 10 feet from the ultimate right-of-way line of ~ Sroadway, and that plans also indicated a 9-foot wide driveway along the westerly boundary of the property, which would grovide access to two parking - spaces in the rear yard since the petitioner indicated plans to retain the = existing garage for parking spaces for his residential use. i`: "` Mrs. James (Ingrid) vower, 412 South Falcon Street, appeared before the _ Commission and stated she was violently opposed to the proposed area develop- ; ment plan and use of the property for commercial purposes; that the children on Fann and Falcon Streets attended Loara School at Loara and Brqadway and ` had to cross Euclid Street and Broadway; that it was frightening just to ~ watch these children before and after school; that three children were injured •i at Fann and Broadway, and one was still in serious condition in the hospital - '~ therefore, she could see no need to inject any additional commercial traffic ~~~ on Fann Street just south of this intersection; that there would not be as much opposition if the children could go to a different school, but that was ;?; impossible; that there were three to four driveways on the commercial parcel - s on the north side of Broadway, and there appeared to be problems all the time '; when children were going to and returning from school; that the plan pro osed ' the minimum of everything; that the residettts of the homes on the west side %1 of subject property were not sure they would allow the petitioner to have access across their property; that even though her property did not back ~i up to subject property, there was only a rear yard between them, she still would be opposed to commercial uses; and that she urged the Commission :,'.~~ to deny sub ject petition. ~~ .;.q. ~:,w Commissioner Seymour inguired whether or not t:he opposition was proposing that i the property remain residential; whereupon Mrs. Gower stated that she would prefer this so that children would only be faced with residential traffic and not commercial traffic and public access. Mrs. Gower further stated that traffic on Falcon and Fann Streets was very fast, and children were not hit at the intersection of Fann Street and Broadw~p but below that intersect;ton, and the reason the traffic was so fast was because motorists were trying to avoid two traffic signals, both at Oran7e and at Broadway, and since the street was a very straight street, it became a speedway with cars tearing up the street, then suggested that the Comaission visit the area after school hours to experience first-hand the conaern she expressed, particularly since children £elt thai tltey were '. indestructible and walked and road their bicycles without any fear. ';: Mr. Wallace Warren, agent for the pe::itioner, a ~`, and noted that subject property bordered on commercial propertyhand~wassalso ,'' across £rom commercial property; that what he pioposed would be a transitional use with dual use of the property until such time as the three parcels devel- oped for commercia! use; that the proposed use would be a benefit rather than a detriment to the area; that access was proposed to the rear for the two j parking spaces; and that he could see no problem from the use proposed to the children in the area. + ~ . `iL . ..... .. . . . .~ . .. . , , ~ rf . ~ ~ ~ ~ _ . " ~ ., ~ ~ . ` ' ^~ . L~- _ <~~ . . . ~ ~ , ...:.~ , . ~:~:: ~ ,- _ ,l. I ' I ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 14, 1971 ~J 71-365 AREA DEV~LOPMENT - Mr. Warren, in response to Commission questioning, stated PLAN NO. 93 that it was proposed to gain access to the rear parking by way of a 9-foot, 6-inch driveway along one side of VARIANCE NO. 2262 the property, and there was adequate room at the rear (Continued) for a turnaround area. . Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that based ~~n information staff had from the Building Division, the distance between tha home and the side property line was 8~ feet, but if the existing fence: were on the existing adjoining property line, this could account for the difference in distance quoted by the petitioner and the Building Division; however, the petitioner was proposing to have two parking spaces at the rear which would serve the existing 405-square foot addition, but there would not be sufficient parking in the future if subject property were converted for full commercial use. In addition, a 9-£oot driveway v~as not considered adequate and did not meet the City standards wherein a 10-foot minimuwas required; and that Exhibit "B" represented a 20-foot common driveway, however, if this were provided, it would necessitate removal of both structures. Commissioner Seymour inquired which exhibit the petitioner preferred; where- upon Mr. Warren replied that Exhibit "B" would be acceptable. Mr. Roberts noted that assuming an S-foot, 6-inch separation was correct, then at least 1~ feet would be needed because of the eave overhang which should not extend into the driveway, Commissioner Seymour then noted that if Exhibit "B" v:ere approved, these structures would have to be removed. ~%;~ '~~~ Mr. Wa.rren noted that since this was adjacent to the garage, there would be ~+ no problem in removing the wall to provide the required 10 feet. ;::i;.~ N:r. Roberts, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the two parking spaces proposed would be sufficient for the addition, and although the Commis- sion might approve limited use of the property for commercial purposes, it ' could.be assumed that in the future the entire structure would be used for a commercial purposes - then there would be insufficient parking in the rear .,,s and there would be inadequate maneuverability. _ .~~ ;4 : ,,'~ ; ~'^ ~~ ~ ti., ~ r ~ '? a ;' .; `, J *,; .~c ~ ~ ~~I 1 _ ~'t ~ + i= Mr. Warren, in response to Commission questioning, stated there was adequate room for fiVe or six vehicles, although he realized there was insufficient parking if the use were expanded; that if Exhibit "B" were approved and full cammerctal uses were considered, a portion of the building could be relocated to the south and a long structure ~long the easterly property line could be provided, thus providing access, parking, and a turnaround area; and that a 1U00-square foot building would be adequate for commercial purposes. Commissioner Gauer noted that when the area development plan was before the Commission previously, it was denied by both the Planning Commission and the City Council; that he was not in favor of any additional strip commercial uses along arterials, and that the petitioner was proposing commercial use via a variance. Furthermore, from a standpoint of commercial space in town, there was more than adequate office spacE available without breaking down a residen- tial area; and that although the City in the past had tried similar types oE proposals, these were rarely exercised o.r developed, and approval of subject petition would compound this City's problems. Mrs. Gower again appeared before the Commission and stated that the petitioner was speaking of a minimum of two cars, and if anyone ever thought about it, no real estate office that had only two cars at a time would be successful; that it would be more than difficult for the City to police the property to see that the petitioner would not be going beyond what the City approved - therefore, the petitioner would be free to do whatever he wanted; and that no one could expect the City to check on each zoning petition acted on to determine if they were adhering to the requirements set forth. Furthermore, the agent for the petitioner ,purchased the property as a home to start out with - now he was requestinq a commercial use, thereby increasing the value of his home but depreciating the value of the adjoining homes, and if he wanted to reside in the home, they would be happy to welcome him as a neighbor, but that he should establish his office elsewhere. ~~.;-, ~:.°--.~:+:••- - -,;.--~~ - . ' ^~ _ , _ . .: ,. : ~ , ._:.~ -~ ~ { ~} -:;t? . 'p : ';1^ , ;~; Ir ~: ',j sl 'r -, r w= ~'r 'kc . ~ _ . f ~ `I ~ ~~ ~J MxNUTES, CxTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ June 14, 1971 71~366 AREA DEVELOPMENT - A showing of hands indicated four persons present in PLAN NO. 93 opposition to subje;:t petition. VARIANCE NO. 2262 THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. (Continued) ~ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-112 and moved for its passage and adoption to advise the City Council that no change to the Commission's original reco~mendation shoul3 take place based on the fact that no land use change had taken place that warranted a change in the Commission's original position; that approval of the area development plan could destroy the residential character of the area; and that consideration of a secondary circulation for commercial use of the property was premature - therefore, the area development plan should again be denied. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolutioa was passed by the follor~ing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, 'owland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMIS520NER5: None. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-113 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2262 based on the fact that Area Development Plan No. 93 was denied - therefore, commercial use of the property would not have adequate secondary access; that land assembly of the three parcels fronting on Broadway was the only solution to considering any commerci.al uses for subject and the two other parcels fronting on Broadway. Further'more, the petitioner had not demonstrated that there was a hardship involved in which he was being deprived of a use of the property which others in the area enjoyed. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the faregoinq resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. AREA DEVET~OPMENT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY ~ PLAN N0. 107 PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East I,incoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to consider circulation and access for an area on the south side of Broadway, east of Loara Street, to the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. Subject area development plan was continued from the neeting of May 17, 1971, to allow property owners affected by the plan to review it and determine if alternate circulation should be provided. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property and the pxoposal to provide a 1oca1 vehicular access and circulation s.ystem for the area; that the area develonment plan was continued from the May,1.7~, T971~, me'eting to allow time for the property owners affected by the ~ proposed circulation plan to review the proposal and to submit plans for development of these properties; that staff had discussed a preliminary lay- out for the major portion of the study area - however, it would appear tha± it would be several weeks before an application would bc submitted on that property; and that with regard to the easternmost portion, as of the writing of the report, no plans had been submitted for development of that property - therefore, the Commission might wish to continue the area development plan in order that it might be considered in conjunction. with two development proposals. Furthermore, the 20 acres under consideration was depicted on the General Plan for medium-density residential uses, and upwards of 600 units could ultimately be developed on the property, an~ with this anticipated dwelling unit density for these remaining parcels, an escimated daily volume of 6,500 vehicles would be qenerated, and the Traffic Engineer stated that the existing Broadway volumes were 15,000 per day and Loara Street 4,200 per day, and on this basis, it was his opinion that there should be a oollector street connecting to Loara Street to accommodate a portion of the qenerated traffic since exclusive exit to Broadway only could cause extreme congestion during certain hours. ~•s ~; _ 1~~, - ~ ~~ ~~ : .... . . .... , _ 4 , ~___ t - ~-~~--' - a~=~-.::.:r. .. . . ~ . _~. . _..1_ . :, ~ _ , `l _ , ~ . . ~~;:~.~ .~.. _ _ ~ ,. . ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMZSSZON, June 14, 197i 0 AREA DEVELOPMENT - Mr. WalteX Chaffey, 131 West Wilshire Street, Fullerton, PLAN NO. 107 representing Mr. Berger, owner of the westerly 15 acres, (Continued) appeared before the Commission and noted tnat Mr. Berger had thought at the last public hearing that he had a sale for his progerty, but this deal fell through, and they were now negotiating with another developer - however, they had not signed any final papers; that he noticed that the petitioner on Reclassification No. 70-71-43 was requesting a continuance - therefore, he would suggest that the area development plan be continued in order that they could resolve any circulation problems. ,~,,;:;~,,~~ "`~' Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not an area development plan would ;.~ be beneficial to th~ proposed develope;.s of the property; whereupon Mr. Chaffey !' ~3 replied negatively. ;;j `~ Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that rather than having access points `~ fixed via an area development plan, he would prefer to see owners of the properties present development plans indicating the type of circulation that ~ they proposed, and that when the owners arrived at a decision as to develop- ~ ment of land use, then there would be sufficient time for consideratio_z by the Planning Commission of an area development plan. Mr. Slaughter inquired whether Mr. Chaffey knew if the proposed developer i. was planning to develop the property under Reclassification No. 70-71-43; `;~!`. whereupon Mr. Chaffey replied that they were not, however, they would be ;_,,;; glad to work with any developer of that property as it pertained to access. ~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that he did not know whether the :r; applicant of item :~o. 4 was present; however, he would like to point out that in speaking with this gentleman, he had 3ndicated he was negotiating with the people, which Mr. Berger had reference tu at the previous public hearing. ~ Commiesioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue consideration of Area _V De~elopment Plan No. 107 to the meeting of ~uly 12, 1971. _ ;~~ ~~ ;:3 "'.. ~:; ~ y~... ~ :. :{ ~~, ' s; (,i ~ `;; %i '}~ :r; ' : I ,~.': {Y:.' ' a_.. :.::: ,:; , jy,. . I;t '=:~;. k.''' ~ .~c ' ~''. ~. i" ~ 7 ~:- `. Discussion was held by the Commission and staff whether or not this would be sufficient time for t:ie submiss3:on of development plans for the 15-acre parcel, and after the discussion, Commissioner Kaywood amended her motion to read as follows: "Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue considera-, tion of Area Development Plan No. 107 to the meeting of August 9, 1971, to i allow time for p•rospective developers of the 15-acre parcel in the study area to submit development plans and for the property owner under Reclassification No. 70-71-43 to also submit development plans." Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MpTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTSNUED PUSLIC HEARING. ATLANTIC MOTOR:., INC., NO. 70-71-43 H. R. McNeil, President, 325 South Atlantic Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Owner; DONALD F. BUHLER AND M. L. BOWER, 4001 Birch Street, Newport Beach, California, Agents; requesting that property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.4 acres, having a frontage of approxi- mately 90 feet on the south side of Broadway, having a maximum depth of approximately 644 feet, and being located approximately 991 feet east of the centerline of Loara Street, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE to the R-3, MULTTPLE-PAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meetings of Apri1 19 and May 17, 1971, to allow time for the preparation of an area development plan that would provide circulation for those preperties located south of Broadway between Loara Street and the railroad tracks and for development plans to be submitted. No one was present to rapresent the petitioner. Staff indicated that since no development plans had been submitted, they would recommend continuance of subject petition to coincide with the area develooment plan. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to continue consideration of Reclassifi- cation No. 70-71-43 to the meeting of August 9, 1971, to allow time for the submission of development plans. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTIO CARRIED. w;#;, e~.~..'~""!~i7A'v , - . r~ - r, ;.,c,: ' - ~ . _ ..--. . . ... . . , . . . . . ~ ~ _ . _a~ . ~ - .l ~ ' ~ ,I t I. ~ V MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, aune 14, 1971 i~ 71-368 - RECLP_SSIFICA`Pl:ON - CONTINUED PUBLIC AEARING. R. SPEHAR, J. LIBERIO, AND N0. 70-71-53 H. BUDLONG, 1681 West Broadway, Suite l, Anaheim, ~ California, Owners; ANACAL ENGINEERII3^, COMPA2vY, 222 TENTATIVE MAP OF East Lincoln Avenue, Agent; requesting that property `~~ TRACT N0. 7419 described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 45 acres, having a frontage of approximately 1,540 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 1,340 feet, and being located approximately 2,000 feet eact of the centerline of Imperial ,` ~! Highway, be reclassified from the COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT a-;~ AND CITY OF ANAHEIM R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ~~ ZONE. ~r TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: RAYMOND SPEHAR AND J. LIBERIO, 1681 West Broadway, Suite 1, Anaheim, California. ENGINEER: ANACAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject property is Froposed for subdivision into 240 R-2-5000 zoned lots. q.. :.. .',L i ~'' '~ I r'5;..', •: ~:i i't i : .:,. _;. '~~,- : .~ . `~ ~ , i ~ i5 \ . , . .~. ~ Subject petition and tract were continued from the May3 and 17 and June 2, 1971, meetings at the request of the petitioner. ' Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slauqhter reviewed the location of subject property and the proposal, noting that"a revised tract had not been received although he had talked with the purchasers of the property, and they had been under the impression that the map had been submitted, however, since it had not been submitted, they felt confident it would be filed before the next ICPS&GW meeting, at which time the staff could review it. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the tract map would have to be in the department by 3une 18 in order to be considered at the next ICPS&GW meeting. Commissioner Farano was of the opinion that if subject petition and tract were continued for only two weeks, and no revised tract map was submitted, it should be taken off the agenda and be required to reapply, since it was not fair to other petitioners on a schedule when petitions were continued continuously without any apparent attempt of the petitioners/agents to be present to state if they had problems. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for I Reclassification No. 70-71-53 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7419 to the meet- ing of ~une 28, 1971, as requested by the petitioner to allow time to submit a revised tract map. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE N0. 2257 - PUBLIC HEARING. ADOLPH W. LEMKE, 12522 E1 Roy Drive, Santa Ana, California, Owner; HALL & FOREMAN, INC., P. O. TENTATT'VE MAP OF Box 11667, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requestinq TRACT NO. 7426 WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT WIDTH AND (2) THE REQUIREMENT THAT SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURES REAR ON ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS TO PERMIT A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT PROPOSED TO SIDE-ON SAmTA AriA CAriYON ROAD on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 9.4 acres, having a frontage of approxi- mately 459 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 1,054 feet, and being located approximately 900 feet east of the centerline of Lakewood Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL~ 20NE. Subject tract is proposed for subdivision into 39 R-1 zoned lots. Subject petition and tract were continued from the meetings of May 17 and June 2, 1971, to a1Zow the petitioner time to resolve access problems with the Orange Unified School District and to submit a revised tract map. ~ Assistant Zoning Sspervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, noting that the engineer for the project had advised staff that the de~~lopers were negotiating with the Orange Unified School District to determine the alignment for the street that was proposed al.ong the westerly boundary of the Vista Del Rio High School, I ! e...r.~~ . ~w~ts ~ '• '~ew ~.~~ . -;. . . ., .,.. . - , ,. . /1. . _ ~ .R.s:' f: , _ , _~ . . . .. .. , ~. . _ , i .: , ~ I . s _ i b~~.iri-- - -- -- I ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 14, 1971 ~/ 71-369 VARIANCE N0. 2257 - and since this matter had not been decided by the school board, the applicant was requesting this matter to be TENTATIVE MAP OF continued two more weeks. TRACT NO. 7426 (Continued) Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that if the school board met on the first and third Thursdays of the month, th,~ developer would not have sufficient time to submit revised plans in time for the Interdepartmental Committee meeting for the June 28 meeting. Therefore, he would recommend a four-week continuance. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue consideration of Variance No. 2257 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7426 to the meeting of Ju'ly 12, 1971, in order to allow time for the developer to resolve street alignment problems with the Orange Unified School District. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH, 420 PERMIT NO. 658 Fernhill Lane, Anaheim, California, Owner.; requesting ~: permission to ESTABLISH A CHRISTIAN DAY SCHOOL FOR ' KINDERGARTEN THROUGH EIGHTH GRADE IN CONJiJNCTION WITH AN EXISTING CHURCH on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Nohl Canyon Road and Nohl Ranch Road, having approximate frontages of 341 feet on Nohl Canyon Road and 477 feet on Nohl Ranch Road, and further described as 4101 East Nohl Ranch Road. Property ,',' presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. r ' ~:V~ .; ~` ~~ M; ~-; . ," * ,,. .~~.~c-"s'. `, x,<i:Y;:~ a' . Subject petition was continued from the meeting of June 2, 1971, to allow time to resolve access problems and for the petitioner to meet with adjoining property owners. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject I property, uses established in close proximity, and the request for clarifica- i tion of the existing uses approved under the master plan in 1964 and 1968 as to whether or not.the Christian educational facilities included the Christian i day school, since the petitioner had submitted said request to permit the school! for 120 students from kindergarten through eighth grades; that the petitioner since the last public hearing had indicated that if there appeared to be further; objection, he would stipulate to eliminating the Church Haven Way drive access, providinq on7:y the Nohl Canyon Road access; and that the Traffic Engineer had ~ indicated that one driveway was anequate for the expected number of vehicles that would be using this parking lot. Reverend W. L. Conradson, pastor of the Trinity Lutheran Church, appeared ' before the Commission and stated he was still awaiting clarification from the Commission as to whether or :.~t the use originally approved included a Christian day school when the Christian educational facilities were approved in 1964; that the 1925 Supreme Court ruled that schooling was requiredJbut did not ne~essarily mean children had to be educated in public schools; that if they were in violation of approval of a day school, then they would be in violation of the daily vacation Bible school, last year having had more than 125 children ! and planned to have another one this year; that the assembly of Boy Scouts would also be in violation, nor would they be allowed use of the church for fellowship suppers and for the ho~neowners association to meet, nor use of the church for a polling place. Commissioner Allred noted that these uses were generally considered normal for churches, and what was before the Commission was consideration of whether or not the use originally approved was considered an expansion of that use previously approved. Reverend Conradson then noted that no one appeared in opposition when they applied in 1964; that three of the present Commissioners were on the Commission ' then; that the American Missions and District Bishop were directly responsible for setl•ing up the church; that he had contacted both the Missions and the Bishop as to their inte~tiun in the original request, and they had stated that it was obvious because of the size of the lot that it was their intent to have a day school should the congregation desire a school; that they could close off one entrance if this appeared to be a problem with the neighbors; that he had counted the number of cars using the Church Haven Way exit on Sunday, and . . ..-~- . ~. , . , - .. :~: ~ . , _- „ ~~ t~ , ~ ~ . . ,. _ .. . .. . . , . ~. . ~ . . - ~ . . . . . . ` . _n ~ - _ _ _ f .. '` -, ~ _ . ',;'; ;.: t:`:. . i;: _; ~'`.'-~:a ,'; ~". ~ .+k! ; ~J ~_~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION, 3une 14, 1971 ~ 71-370 CONDITIONAL USE - there were only six using it; that if he lived on a cul- PERMIT NO. 658 de-sac street backed up by steep hills on one side, he (Continued) would take great com£ort that there was another exit from the street in the evcnt of fire, and if this exit were alosed off, it would be closed to everybody; and that they did not plan to begin with 120 students since in their present building they could have only 40 to 50 students, however, the master plan had a two-story building which would take care of the balance of these students. Commissioner Allred noted that the vacation Bible school enrollment was 125, but the facilities were not geared for this many - how would they handle the number when the facilities were not geared for this number o£ childrpn? Reverend Conradson,stated that they used all the other rooms just as trey did for Sunday school, since twice the number of children could be accommodated than a regular day schbol. ~- Chairman Herbst inquired whether or not it.was planned to have the playground area by the slope along the east; whereupon Reverend Conradson stated there ~vas no plan to build there since that would be the playground area. Chairman Herbst then noted that two homes abutted that portion of the property, and although the fence might have been 6 feet, it did not appear to be 6 feet on viewing the property, Reverend Conradson noted this wali was built by the developer in 1964 prior to the time they had accepted the church property, and that the fence was 6 feet - but it might have been stepped down, and that he was 6 feet, 4 inches tall, and he could look over said fence. However, it was quite possible that the fence was stepped down as it approached Church Haven way, and perhaps this was a requirement of the City, but he would assure the Commission that it would be 6 feet high adjacent to the playground area. Mr. Ron Bevins, 136 Whiting, Fullerton, attorney representing some of the homeowners, appeared before the Commission and noted that the basic issue before the Commission was whether or not it was the Commission's intent in 1964 to permit a Christian day school czr whether or not the Commission now was considering the conditional use per~nit to modify their original intent for a day school; and that if it was the first assumption, from his perusal of the file, it would appear that the ,ppliaation was not for a day school. Commissioner Gauer noted he had been a Commissioner at the time this was originally considered, and his interpretation of Christian educational facili- ties included a regular day school. Mr. Bevins continued that the request was for a church with Christian educa- tional facilities - ho~vever, in checking he did not find anything regarding a day school, therefore, it could be interpreted as being a church and Sunday school; that no discussion was held, according to the minutes, as to whether or not this was a day school; that no provisions were made on the original plan for a playground; that if it was the intent of the Commission that this be a day school, then he could see no reason for the public heariny, but it would appear staff had some serious doubts that the Commission had considered this originally as a Christian day school. Secondly, the question to consider was whether or not this was a proper place for a day school. Commissioner Allred inquired what would the opposition say if this church held services every day - this could be considered part of the education of a Christian educational facility, and in his opinion there was no difference. Mr. Bevins noted that the plans did not indicate where the school was proposed to be conducted - therefore, this must have been what concerned staff and may have been the reason why the Commission set this for public hearing so that modification to the original lntent or plans could be made. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the statement made by Mr. Bevins was substantially correct and was one of the reasons staff brought this request to the Planning Commission to be directed as to their intent; however, because of another similar problem, the Commission determined it should be considered at a public hearing since the church had been approved long before many of the homes in the area were built - tharefore, the readvertised public hearinq was to clarify the Commission's intent as to whether or not they had intended to ~ - # . ~ t ~ ,, ~ ~~ t_.:~+~f .. , ~ ! _r . :' _ ~_ , - ~ r ,~ ~,' f'_ U (~> ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~une 14, 1971 71-371 CONDITIONAL USE - permit a day school and for the residents now in the area PERMIT N0. 658 to voice their feelings in the matter. (Continued) Commissioner Gauer noted that in the plot plan originally submitted by Lusk Corporation there was no question that a school was to be developed, and as far as r.eference to Christian education was concerned, that could encompass considerable territory, aot necessarily covering a day school, but any form of Christian education activities - there- fore, the original petition covered everything that might conceivably be considered for the future, and since the use ~:as approved prior to construction of the homes, prior right was evident, and that the Commission had heard considerable talk to clear the atmosphere - however, there was no need to spend so much time on a matter which had been submitted years ago by the developer of the plan since the plan itself was indicative of what the intended use was. Mr. Bevins noted that the plot plan did not indicate a play area, which would be indicative of a day school. ; Mr. Roberts noted that the original plan submitted did not indicate a specific ~ area for oiitdoor recreation facilities; however, in a later plan submitted in January, 1969, this was indicated, and staff approved the plans as being substantially in conformance with the original plans approved. ~ Mr. Bevins noted that the original plans only indicated parking facilities for church and Sunday scho~l, but nothing was indicated for day school. Mr. Roberts noted that the breakdown for parking was based upon the number attending church in the main place of worship, and the number of people attend- ing Sunday school since this would be considerably greater than what would be needed for a day school. Mr. Bevins noted that when a homeowner purchased his home after this approval, he would have no way of knowing that a day school was contemplated or approved since there was no way that one could know - therefore, he would suggest that the Commission consider the merits of whether or not a day school was the appropriate use in this area since the neighbors were not opposed to schools in general, but were opposed to the basic property rights and their concern as to whether or not this use would be detrimental to their homes which cost them in the vicinity of $42,000 to $50,000, particularly those along Church Haven Way, and this represented over $400,000, homes that would be subject ; to the full thrust of any detrimental effect from the school and church; and ~ that he had several of the homeowners who would appear to express what they felt the effect of the use would be to them. " Mr. Fred Schmuck, 427 Fernhill Lane, appeared before the Commission and noted ~r, he had appeared at the last public hearing and spoke of the traffic problem, ~ at which time the pastor had indicated the speed limit on Nohl Ranch Road was ,:';5~ 45 miles per hour - however, this speed was only permitted immediateiy to the `'~f because Nohl Canyon Road, and perhaps the excessive speed was experienced people were attempting to make the grade between Santiago Soulevard '~ and Nohl Canyon Road; and that if something were not done to protect the z children going to either the public or privzte schools, many children wc~uld '~i~ be injured, some even fatally. ;?~ Commissioner Seymour inquired whether Mr. Schmuck w ~ as concerned with the use proposed for a Christian day school or traffic; whereu on M ~ i p r. Schmuck replied that his concern was traffic. 4: ' . -. '-. r {' Commissioner Seymour then inquired whether the opposition felt th mor t ; "~~ , e ere would be raffic from this use; whereupon Mr. Schmuck stated that sidewalks were required onl on ±; " y one side of the street in accordance with the hillside zoning requirements, and the child ~;~ '. ren would have to cross Nohl Ranch Road, but with the speed necessary to make the hill this w a:'., , as a very serious concern. ;~ Commissioner Seymour noted there were two basic problems before th one 4:~` : e Commission, was the day school and the other was traffic, and inquired whethe Schmuck M . ~ r r. was opposed to either or both. ` ` ~ ~ Mr, Schmuck replied that it was basic zoning since a technical s~hool could mean opening a a ~'; g rage, and the people who were sold their homes in this area were led to believe thi ~ .+ke .,' s would be a church, and it came to them as a shock, . ! 1. . i , ~ }~si ~ . - ; : .: ~:, .. . ..... . . ,. , . , f? ~ ~ ~.: ~ . .. . . , . . .. ~ ~ . . .. . L. ~ . ~ ~ _.~ ut-.' ~~~ . .. ~ ,~~ . ~ . ~ ~ . ' ' ~ . . " ' .. - . ~ . . . . ': . . . ` '~ . . . ~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMriISSION, June 14, 1971 71-372 CONDITIONAL USE - frankly, that a day school was being considered - however, .r:` PERMIT NO. 658 his main concern was still one of traffic. (Continued) Commissioner Rowland inquired whether the elementary school on the south side of Nohl Ranch Road came as a shock to the residents also; wher?apon Mr. Schmuck replied that the school .. was indicated in their brochure. Mr. Robert Salerno, 4128 Church Haven way, appeared before the Commission in ~.,_~ : opposition and stated his property was immediately adjacent to the church grounds, abutting almost the entire easterly property line; therefore, he was '~;`:~'',~ more concerned as to other noises that would emanate from the proposed school playgrounds since the existing 6-foot wall was such that anyone could walk ;~ ~`t over it and enter his rear yard. Commissioner Rowland inquired whether or not the 6-foot wall was on the church :~ property or on the single-family home property. =~~ Mr. Salerno replied that the. church property and his came to a point. ` ti Commi.ssioner Allred inquired how~much of the,;slope beZonged to the church and how much to the adjoining proper.ty~ownersi~w•heieupon".`Mr: Salerno replied that his property ended at the bottom of the slope. ~~ ~; Mr;. Roberts noted that he had checked the file - however, he could find.nothing which indicated that the wall was a requirement in the approval of the cliuYCh. ~] ``;~r;•' Therefore, the developer must have provided it. ';;;~a Mr. Henrik Van Ysseldyk, 4125 Church Haven Way, appeared before the Commission ` V~~ in opgosition and stated his home was directly opposite the parking area and 1; } driveway; that his oppositon was primarily from a traffic standpoint, since ; he had purchased his home on a cul-de-sac, paying considerably more because he ~ ~:`_,...,;.~ wanted to avoid this trafEic; that he was fully aware there would be church ~ '~' - gatherings at night, together with church and Sunday school on Sunday, but he + ';„~,,;,`;~ felt as though they had been cheated since they had inquired as to zoning, and j ~` ~t all they had been able to learn was a church and normal Sunday school activi- ~ „, -~ ties - therefore, the request before the Commission for a day school with up ~ ;~ ,a to 120 students could mean further expansion and maybe many hundreds of childreni ia An~ on this property attending school; and that if additional buildings were con- l A,~~ structed, this would increase the intensity of the use and traffic to the ~ ~~ cul-de-sac - however, he would be willing to consider the offer of the church ~ that the access to Church Haven Way would be closed. ! - "~ ,~?,~ Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether closing off the drive to Church Haven ~' Way would help Mr. Van Ysseldyk's problem; whereupon Mr. Van Ysseldyk stated ,~ it would help to a certain extent since this would retain the residential :;s", character of the street. ~;:.^: Commissioner Kaywood then noted that Reverend Conradson stated there would be '~~ a maxinum of 120 students, but they planned to start with 50 studenks; ,.;;~ whereupon Mr. Van Ysseldyk stated there could be as many as 240 students. ;4 =;:~, Commissioner Kaywooa then asked Mr. Van Ysseldyk, if the Commission limited the number of students to 100 to 120, would he still be 3n opposition; where- upon Mr. Van Ysseldyk stated that he would, since they had purchased their homes and moved into this area because of the privacy and only church-related ''<= and church activities were indicated; and that he did not want to be subjected to any additional noises and nuisances from children that might attend this school. -=~'~ -- Reverend Conradson, in rebuttal, noted that their last year daily vacation ~`" ~ Bible school had a total attendance of 140 children, and that there were 15 x ~..,,;.,,;,,: ~~```%" members of the church present in favor of the proposed school. Furthermore, ;,r,.,,... the le end that a 1~~ '; g ppeared in the plans indicated what the maximum usage of the ~ property would be when the master plan was completed, and that the Sunday h`,~ school generated twice the number of students that a regular school would generate. ~*'' Mr. Hugh Thompson, 4051 Circle Haven Road, appeared before the Commission and *- noted he had resided in this area since 1965; that he was treasurer of the '.~f "~: Nohl Ranch Homeowners Association and at a recent meetinq of their association , _ this matter of a day school was braught to a vote - however, the board voted ` ' . . . . ' . ."~~/jji~ili6Ls-4 ~ . . ' ~ ; . , . ' ~ . ~ i ~ i ~ ~ -- ~ . ~~ Q MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 14, 1971 ~ _~ 71-373 CONDITIONAL USE - not to take any action or express any opinion on this PERMIT NO. 658 matter; that at least 30 members of the association were (Continued) also members of the church; and that it would appear this was a matter of neighbor against neighbor - therefore, the association could take no stan3 on the matter. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer noted that the Commission had held several hearings on this matter; that the master plan indicated what the church intended to do, and it was his opinion that the petitioner originally stated their intent since a church of this denomination, or the Mormon or Catholic faiths particularly, when they purchased property for a church, they purchased it with the intention of eventually having a church school, and this was true for many years, even when he was superintendent of elementary schools in Anaheim many years ago - many people, then, wanted their children to go to private schaol, even though it meant paying for the private school tuition as well as paying taxes for public schools; that the traffic problem could be helped somewhat if the residents of the area requested that a police car patrol this area more often - this could help reduce the number of speeders; and that the church made the investment in 1964 in good faith and had been located there for some time. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-114 and moved for its passage and adoption to clarify the intent of the Planning Commission in approving Conditional Use Permit No. 658 in 1964; that Christian education facilities included a Christian day school. Considerable discussion was held by the Commission relative to the elimination of the drive to Church Haven Way; limiting the number of stude:nts to 120; providing dense landscaping or a 42-inch wall adjacent to Church Haven Way property line, as well as dense 1.^ndscaping, including trees, on the easterly property line where the proposed playground area was to be located; reversing the location of the two-story building at such time as it was to be built so that it would act as a buffer between the single-family homes and the school playground; recommending to the City Council that a four-way stop be pravided at the intersection of Nohl Ranch and Nohl Canyon Roads; recommend- ing further that crossing guards be supplied during school hours at this intersection; that a radar setup be provided to eliminate the number of speeders along Nohl Ranch Road; time limitation in which to accomplish all of these requirements; and upon conclusion of said discussion, Commissioner Seymour stated he wished to clarify all comments made that the intent of the Commission ; was to establish a Christian day school in their terminology of Christian education facilities; that a maximum of 120 students be permitted; that the access to Church Haven Way be eliminated and the existing driveway approach apron be removed and standard curbs and gutters be established; that dense lar.dscaping and/or a 42-inch wall be provided along Church Haven Wap and dense ~ landscaping along the east property line, particularly adjacent to the proposed ; play area; that it be recommended to the C'ity Council that a four-way stop be provided at the intersection of Nohl Ranch and Nohl Canyon Roads; and that crossinq guards be provided during school hours at said intersection, together with -r: .iding a radar setup. Commis..ioner Allred indicated that in addition to the statements made by Commissioner Seymour, a landscaping program should be provided adjacent to ; tha single-family homes both along Church Haven Way and the easterly property ; line, since there appeared to be space made available and this to be done immediately if a school were to have classes starting in September. Mr. Roberts then inquired if these conditions were being imposed by the Commission, was it the intent of the Commission to close off the driveway immediately, and at what time were these conditions to be met. Commissioner Seymour inquired of Reverend Conradson whether or not these conditions being imposed:could be met within a given length of time; whereupon Reverend Conradson replied that they would do everything within their ability and means to meet these conditions, and that while they did not have any bushes or trees along the easterly property line, they maintained it free of any weeds. Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that a 180-day time limitation would be adequate, and if these conditions could not be met withir, said time, an exten- sion could be granted. 2;d" . ' ~''"„~+~5~"r - i~ ,.... ,_ . .. . . . . ._ . .. ~ ~ . . ~ . . . t' +:;:ai~ ~rx?'. ~' , .. .~~.~~ . . - ~ ~ ~ ~ .. . ~ ~ . ~ .. ,~. . ~ ~ ~ , ~. ~ "r i _ _ ~ ~ I_ ~~:~..._--- ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~une 14, 1971 71-374 ., - CONDITIONAL USE - Commis3ione,. Gauer determined that his motion should be PERMIT NO. 658 restated for clarification purposes and offered Resolution (Continued) No. PC71-114 and moved for its passage and adoption to clarify the intent of the Planning Commission which was to include a Christian day school as a p~~rmitted use on subject property since it was an accepted, normal procedure for a parochial school to build at the time the church ~ac £inancially able to provide a school, and subject to requiring that the existing structure be brought up to the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Housing, Mechanical, and Fire Codes, prior to commence- ment of the activity authorized under the resolution; that the existing drive- way on Church Haven Way be barricaded immediately to preclude church traffic from using said street; that the existing driveway approach and entrance/exit to Church Haven Way be removed and replaced with standard curb and gutter; that a 42-inch decorative masonry wall and/or dense landscaping be provided along the entire frontage of Church Haven Way, plans to be submitted to the Development Services Department for approval; that dense landscaping, including trees, be provided along the easterly property line adjacent to the area proposed for a recreation area, plans for said landscaping to be approved by the Development Services Department; that conditions pertaining to removal of i the driveway approach, decorative wall or landscaping, and the landscaping trees along the easterlr property line shall be complied with within 180 days or such further time as the Planning Commission and/or City Council may grant, provided, however, that commencement of the school shall not be dependent ; upon the completion of the conditions; and that a maximum of 120 students be ~ permitted in the Christian day school. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. RECESS - Chairman Herbst declared a five-minute recess to clear the Council Chamber at 3:33 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Herbst reconvened the meeting at 3:40 P.M., all Commissioners being present. TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: HARVEY A. BERGER~ 3333 West Coast Highway, TRACT NO. '1458 Suite 200, Newport Beach, California. ENGINEER: Lander Engineering, 1782 West Lincoln Avenue, Suite H, Anaheim, California. Subject tract, consisting of a portion ~f a 47.15 acre parcel located between the future extension of La Palma Avenue and Esperanza Road approximately 8500 feet northeast of Imperial Highway, is proposed for subdivision into 86 R-2-5000 zoned lots. 3ubject tract was considered in conjunction with Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 7459 and 7460. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, noting that three tracts were involved with a total of 256 R-2-5000 zoned lots; that the City Council approved said zoning in Reclassification No. 70-71-25 in a resolution of intent; that the proposed street pattern appeared to be adequate to serve the subdivision and provision had been made to tie this street sytem into the circulation design for the tracts which had already been approved to the east and west; that the northern p~rtion of the property - the "not-a-pa.rt" portion - was proposed to be retained by the property owner for continued use in connection with his farming operation, hcwever, streets had been stubbed into said parcel in order that it might be subdivided at a later date; and that the lot depths and proposed setbacks along La Palm~ Avenue and the AT&SF railroad right-of-way complied with the new subdivision regulations and City Council Policy No. 538 which would implement the (SC) Zone conditions, Developer Harvey A. Berger indicated his presence to answer questions. ~ 7 - ~ar.,, .. ., _. . r, i" ~ . . . . ~ . ' . . ~ . ~ . . . , ~ ~ _ .. - .. .. . . . ~ . . ~ , ~ ' . . . ~ . , . . _ . . ~ .. ' ` ' .,i _ 1 i t~,~:-. ~ . ~' ` . ` , ! ~v~ t~ ~. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~une 14, 1971 71-375 TENTATIVE MAP OF - Commissioner Gauer er.pressed his concern over the intention TRACT NO. 7458 of the property owner to withhold a portion of his property (Continued) (the "not-a-part" parcel) from development at this time, because where this situation has occurred in the past, developers have pleaded hardship at a later date in an attempt to gain a more intense zone on the ~=aperty; that the parcel was large enough to develop it as a shopping center; and that in all likelihood a request would be submitted for commercial iise. Mr. Berger noted that the landowner had withheld this portion since it was his ranch headquarters from which he serviced a large area north of Esperanza Road, and was the only reason for holding it out; furthermore, the planning staff had requested his engineer to indicate how this "not-a-part" parcel could be subdivided into 5000-square foot lots, and that to •~.he best of his knowledge the explanation was satisfactory, and that streets had been stubbed into this property in order that the parcel could be subdivided at a later date; and that it would be an extreme hardship for the landowner if he had to remove his ranch headquarters at this time because he had sold a portion of his ranch. Chairman Herbst notefl he would not vote in favor of a tract where two dead-end streets were proposed unless the property owner would stipulate that these streets would eventually be extended through this property, and that as a measure of good faith, the property owner should conditionally dedicate sufficient land to extend a street through the "not-a-part" parcel and connect the two stub streets, However, it would not be necessary to install street improvements until such time as the propert,y is to be developed. Office Enqineer Jay Titus inquired whether a conditional dedication, toqether with posting a bond to insure installation of said street, would be adequate. Chairman Herbst noted that he wanted to be assured that the street would be extended through the "not-a-part" parcel so that the City would not be faced again with dead-end streets, and if such dedication were made, this would eliminate any claim that they would not be able to subdivide the "not-a-part" piece. Mr. Berger requested a few moments to consult with his engiaaer on the project. Commissioner Farano noted that a recent article in the Los Angeles Times i mentioned a change in position by the Army Corps of Engineers concerning the flood hazard in the Santa Ana Canyon and asked for clarification. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that this questioa and answer should be hearfi by the developers since they would be affected. Mr. Berqer then inquired whether the Commission was concerned that A-B Street might remain dead-end even when the center portion was developed. Chairman Herbst noted that he wanted dedication to insure that this street would go throuqh the "not-a-part" parcel. Mr. Titus noted that there would be no problem to requiring conditional dedication, but there might be a problem as to posting a bond for improve- ~ ments to assure that the street was constructed when the property developed. Hr. B,:rger noted that the property owner would have no objection to providing an easement and/or dedication for the street, but as to posting a bond, this would be quite expensive, particularly when tliis property might remain as .~. farming headquarters for an indefinite period of time. Chairman Herbst was of the opinion that the City sYould not be faced with two dead-end streets for the next twenty-five years, and he would want the street to be constructed at such time as the City Engineer determined such ~ improvements were necessary. ' Mr. Titus sugqested that the developer provide modified cul-de-sacs at the ends of both dead-end streets at this time to :acilitate street sweeping, and the streets could be extended later. *,;; Mr. Albert Yorba, 20911 Lsperanza Road, appeared before th_ Commission and ;~'~ noted he was the owner of the "not-a-part" parcel and that he was holding it ~ ' . . : :. __-~ _ _ . I ` . ~. _ . ._,,:, ., . ~,. ... , . . i' 1 c.. ,s• - . ~~ .fP"i`~~ f~,~ ~ ,~A~+ ~,:{-. .. -~C4~," : ~.. s .. t ~ ,. .._,. . . „ .. _ _ . . _ ~a , 'y . . _ _i ~ i.' ~ , ~~1 ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 14, 1971 71-376 TENTATIVE MAP OF - out Lecause his foreman lived on the property, and he TRACT NO. 7458 was able to see that the farming equipment was not (Continued) stolen. Commissioner Gauer noted he understood the ~ Comraission was also faced with the prOblem Mr. Yorba had, but the ~ property would be sold, and the newpowneriwouldtcomeainarequestingeatshopping center since it was of the size that would accommodate a center, and thzt it might later be too expensive to purchase to build homes. Chairman Herbst requested that the devEloper and property ownei• submit a tentative layout indicating how the property would be subdivded in the• event :it was no longer used for the ranch headquarters - this would also include ~ the extension of the streets across the property. ~ Mr. Berger stated he would be happy to prepare the tentative layout if the ( Commission would make it a condition of approval of the final tract map, and they would also aqree to pravidii:y the modified cul-de-sac as a temporary measure, which could be made a condition of approval. ~ Commiss';,ner r^arano then restated his concern regarding the change in position ; by the II. S. Army Corps of Engineers as was presented in the Los Angeles Times ~ regarding the potential hazards on the flood plain of which subject property ~ was a part, and inquired what would be proposed if a favorab3e flood hazard letter was not obtained. ~. Mr. Berger no*_ed that Y.e '~ad been making inquiries at the Orange County Flood Control District since iast Thursday, and they had advised him at noon today that they did not have anything of very recent date from the Corps. However, theze were remedial methods that could be taken, namely, the least of which would be no construction in the flood plain area; desilt the land behind Prado Dam; build cheak dams farther upstream; import dirt to raise the level of the tracts; or increase the height of the dikes; however, he could not see any reason w~tiy thi.s land could not be developed, but naturally, he realized this was a risk which everp developer had to take if something happened between now and start of construction or prior to the approval of a final tract map - if one was approved. Commissioner Farano inquiYed whether the developer meant in having plans I approved he would stipulate that he would obtain a favorable flood hazard ~ :.etter, and asked that the developer simplify his answer since he was so thoroughly confused at the change of minds as to the flood hazard in the Santa Ana Canyon. Commissioner Farano further inquired as to whether the developer would have to be given permission to drain into the river channel, and did drainage mean collection of surface water from the tract and any surface water that would be draining into the tract - not sewage - and would the letter be required before any construction could begin. Mr. Berger replied that they would have to have an underground flood control drain into the channel, and this letter of approval would have to be granted by the Orange County Flood Contral District; that he had met with the OCFCD at lunch this date, and they had advised him there was no new information to change their mind, and if there was any new information, they would naturally have to present new and different recommendations which could be very expen- sive for the developer to follow, and if the developer could not fol:cow these recommendations, the tract could not be built. Commissioner Farano then noted t2:at it was the Planning Commission's responsi- bility to approve land use, and the developer'~ responsibility to develop property, but if the Commission were to approve these tracts, how could the Commission, in Mr. Berger's opinion, nake this subject to the proper controls as far as risk of flooding in the Canyon s:ith some safeguard in the event some "authoritative source" stated that the land was not, in fsct, safe because of flood water danger. Mr. Roberts noted that he had discussed with a representative of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers as l.ate as 10:00 A.M. this date the article to which Commissioner Farano made referer.ce, and from all of his remarks, the Corps _ -`~7,:::,, ~:'=~ _. ~,.,:.!` . , , _ ~ r~ : . ` , ~ ,c. ~ ~ ~,~ . . . ' . ` : ~ ,., ~. . :!~~, . • . /. L . . . .. '~ . , , ~ ... ~ . ~ .. . ... . 1 ~ ~ ...~ ~ . ~~ ~ ~ ~. ` ~ ~ ~. ~~` -- ' . . . ~ . .. . ~I : _.". . ~i.- . ~b ~ ~ .. . ~ ~ - . . ~ . .. ~~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANN ING COMMISSION, .7une 14, 1971 ~1_g~~ TENTATIVE MAP OF - had not changed their positi.on, their position always TRACT NO. 7458 had been that there was danger of flood hazards in the ~' (Continued) Canyon; that the statement qive n to the City originally variou t was that the river channel was not capable of handling ` s ypes of floods - however, later the Corps d amended this statement an stated that the channels constructed by the OCF CD during the last year would be capable of ~ handling a 100-year flood, but anything beyond that would be disastrous to the properties in the area; that while the Corps did make this statement, it was still in the "Grey Area" since there still _~~ ,~ could be a disaster in a 100-year flood; that the r eports in the newspaper ~ stated that due to silting behind the Prado Dam, the dam could not handle ~,.;=,;,:r._' a 100-year £lood, but the representative of the Corps to whom he had spoken stated that this was still in the "Grey Area", but they still felt the channel might hold a 100-year flood, and if not, it could be disastrous ~~ }r to the area. Mr. Berger then suggested that a condition be attached to the a t pproval of these tracts, namely, that the tracts be subject to the approval of the City ~ Engineer as it pertained to any flood hazard. '' ~1 i I Chairman Herbst was of the opinion that this should be the responsibility of the Orange County Flood Control District, and it must be approved by them. ' , Commissioner Farano was of the opinion that as a result of all this, it might i:. be unfair to the property owner because it causes him, as a Commissioner, to ; be extremely cautious; and that he did not know what would be feasible and whether the City should accept this responsibility. ~ i i ! Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry suggested that th.ere ma be a Y possibility of filing a hold harmless letter which could be issued by the real estate commissioner regarding the flooding problem. This would be similar to the ~ '.~ statements made for tracts in the Costa Mesa area that the property was subject ~ to periodic flooding. This would then absolve the City, the Cosnty, and the ~ State. r I . Commissioner Farano inquired whether this hold harmless letter was made a ! '~ part of the advertising brochure; whereupon Mr. Berger stated that every ~ '~ purchaser would have to sigii a paper to the effect that he had been made aware i of this flood hazard. I i ~~. `k Commissioner Seymour noted that in the past the Planning Commission had made ~ _z} it a requiremer.t of approval of tract maps in this area that the developers ':! obtain a favorable flood hazard letter from the OCFCD, and, ~~ personally, as ;ti far as this particular hazard is concerned, he was in favor of making it the M1;,, responsibility of the OCFCD (where the responsibility justly should lie), and . that the OCFCD supposedly is in communication with the Corps of Engineers, ~ s; and these two agencies are capable and should have the responsibility for ; determining flood hazard in the area; and that the City Engineer should not ' be saddled with making such a determination since this was not within his scope. ~ ~ Commissioner Seymour then read from an account of the City Council's last -.:,; meet,ir.g wherein the Council continued action on four tentative maps in this - same area due to the 3pparent action of the Oranqe County Board of Supervisors regarding the Yorba Regional Park, and then stated that based upon these statements, he could not in clear conscience approve these tract maps. Mr. Herger noted that as far as the flood control problem was concerned, they did not object to being required to get a favorable flood hazard letter from ! ;` the OCFCD. This could be obtained, but they were asking the Commission to : ..{ recognize the fact that they were competitors with the developers who had ~ their tract maps approved by the Planning Commission. All they wanted the _ Commission to do was to approve the tract maps, putting aside the one question j regarding the flood hazard - this, then, would put them in the same position '! as the other developers, and they would not be unfairly treated. ~; Commissioner Seymour asked that if the Council turned the "faucet off" on tract maps, how could the Commission as a rec~mmending body act on them. * '. .~ ' ~~ I ' _ . .i ~ ~ .i[4.i ~~, ~ A . :. ~ "~~~~r .~.. .. "': n ~ ~. ':~ {~ .~t.y . . . ' . , . . . . . . .u..... . . .~ . ! .. ~ ~~ . . .' ~'__~ ~ ~, MC_~,.; . ~ ; '. ...,:. ; ~ . ~. .. . :. ~ ~. . .. ... . . .~. . . . . . ~, .... _ _ .~. . ... i . '. ~ . .. . . ~ .. .. ~ - . . . . . - . .. .. . . ~a . .4L . . ~ ~ f , ;_ ` _ j ~) ~ ~~) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 3une 14, 1971 ^ -... j ~_~ .~ i 71-378 ' TENTATI~~E MAP OF - Mr. Thompson noted that the Co il unc would take some sort TRACT NO. 7458 of action on June 15; however, Mr. Berger wanted to be (Continued) in the same position as the developers of other tracts in the area rather than be delayed by the Commission an additional two weeks. Commissioner Seymour then stated he would be willing to consider the tracts if the Chairman was satisfied with the proposed solution to the dead-end street problem and other agreements which had been warked out. Chairman Herbst noted he did not want to detain the property owner; that if the County did not app;:opriate funds for the regional park, then the people should be able to use their property. If the County wanted to develop this property as a park, then let them so state this and let the property owner get out from unfler the payment of any more taxes. If the developer will stipulate to dedication and construction of the street through the "not-a-part" parcel at such time as the City Engineer determines it was necessary, then the Commission shoulci take action. Mr. Roberts then read a letter from the OCFCD that was submitted in response to a staff request for comments on the proposed tracts (copy in file) and then noted that this letter was almost identical to previous letters received on other tracts filed in this general area. Commissioner Seymour noted that in his optnion a favorable flood hazard letter would state that the property would not be su~ject to fiooding except in the event of flood flows greater than that generated by a 100-year storm, and if the City experienced something greater than a 100-year storm, then everything from here to Huntington Beach would be flooded and under water. Mr. Berger noted that the letter was the same as previous letters received several months ago, in which they state there was protection from a 100-year storm; the let,.er further stated that special storm drains would have to be built, and they had stipulated to building these with the tract. Mr. Roberts noted that the letter st~ted that the Corps of Engineers made the statement that the existing channel will protect the area from a 100-year storm. Commissioner Farano inquired how the Commission could approve tracts when they did not know if a storm drain easement or drain was going to be constructed. Mr. Titus stated this would be taken care of in the conditions of approval, and that the storm drain would be constructed concurrently with the develop- ment of the first tract. Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion if the Commission voted favorably on these tracts, they would be acting in bad faith with the City Council in view of their recent letter to the Board of Superviso:-s, which wasn't significant in itself, but over a pPriod of several•years the Commission had w~rked very diligently in depth and dcspair trying to preserve open space in the City of Anaheim, and if anyone says they had not, just look at the Hill and Canyon General Plan on which study was started in 1962 and adopted in 1965 by the Commission and Council; then there was that piece of political dynamite which the Council took care of - the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone - this was a politically tough decision to adopt such a plan, even though the City Attorney stated it might be a piece of bad work; now the Council had written a letter to the Board of Supervisors recommending action on their part regarding the Yorba Regional Park; added to that was the flood control probl8m - something which none of the Commissioners are fully knowledgeable about - even with all due respect to Albert Yorba's analysis of the possible flood hazard after having lived there for thirty-four years. This one piece of propert; contrib- utes to property both up and downstream as it pertains to the settling basin; that he was tota].ly for Eree enterprise; that the suggestions made by Mr. Berger to.;lleviate the activities that contribute to flood problems, namely, desilt- ing of a dam 25 miles upstream, would mean the cost would be borne at Federal expense, and the check dams proposed still farther upstream, also the cost being borne individually, the improvement of the Santa Ana River channel in which everyone knows that the Corps of Engineers was most interested - '~:,"=`~°°"~S~'~ - r, . . . ~ . .` _r ~:.. ~'. ~ - '.` t::~ ~~.. ,% 1.. .. :' * . , 1 ~', : ;2 * .+ke ' : _ ' i . ~ w~sa.~ , ~ ~ ~~_~ ~ . . ~~~ MINUTES,CITY PLANNING COMMISS'[OAT, June 14, 1971 V 71-379 TENTATIVE MAP OF - primarily so thac they would not have to worry about it TRACT NO. 7458 forever - like the "beautiful Los Angeles River in its (Continued) concrete majesty" - and with all these statements he would not vote for approval of the maps. Chairman Herbst noted that he did not aaree with Commissioner Rowland because the Commission had approved tracts previously in this area; recognizing that the Council had sent a letter to the Board of Stipervisors, h_ sti~l felt this particular property owner should be subject to the same co ~tions as the other property owners in that area; that siiice the Council would have to approve any tract map, if they denied those before them now, they would also deny the tract maps before the Commission, but at least the Commission would not hold up this developer, since R-2-5000 zoning had been approved by the Commission; that if the County did not approve this area for a park, then the developer could go ahead; and that if the Council approved the tract maps on June 15, then the Commission should take some action on the maps before them today. Commissioner Seymour noted he concurred with Commissioner Rowland as to the use of the property, and to his knawledge it was not the Commission that approved R-2-5000 - the Commission had recommended R-1, but since the Commission was only the recommending body, and the Council chose to adopt the attitude that R-2-5000 was appropriate, he could only act in the recommending capacity; that the decision of whether or not there should be a regional park was not the Commission's deci~ion, the Council would make that based upon what the Board of Supervisors acted on; and that since the Commission cvas the recommending body, they should deal with the problem at hand - the tracts before them - and since tracts in this area had been approved in the past, the Commission should take some action today. Commissioner Farano noted that in regard to the flood problem, he did not know any more now than he did wY.en the Planning Commission first considered it; every time someone issued a statement, it confused the issue. Even with the addendum suggested by Commissioner Seymour on the flood hazard letter for previous tracts, he was not sure this would solve the problem; and until someone established a set of standards that a flood control letter meant something very specific, he could not take action; he did not know what a letter would mean - next week - next year - the standards had become viable, flexible and difficult to determine at any time; that he did not say this with any relish - it was e:ctremely unfair to the property owners; that if these tracts were denied, m.sybe someone could pressure the proper body on what exactly was a favorable floo3 hazard letter. If someone could say what has to be done, and when the Council determined whether or not this would be done, then the Commissiun could do something. Commissioner Seymour noted that he may have misundex•stood the County's letter regarding a stand3rd project flood; if so, the Planning Commission should back up then and get the proper protection. The letter from the OCFCD stated that there was s very great risk in a standard project flood - and since he accepted that, then the OCFCD had the onus. If that was not what it meant, then staff should get some clarification. Commissioner Farano indicated he did not have confidence in the statements which had been made in tY:e past. Mr. Slaughter stated that the OCF~CD paraphrased the Corps' statements on the project flood, and he was not sure that this letter could be considered an authoritative letter. . Mr..Thompson advised the Commi~sion that Mr. Roberts had given them the latest information on the Corps and OCFCD •tatements, Mr. Titus sioted that the OCFf_~U quo~ 3 the Coros in that they were pratected from a 100-year storm, but t;-e:- did not say it was adequate - someone would have to determine what was adequate. In the past the CiLy Council action, in moving ahead, had been faced with the problem, and they had indicated that protection from a 100-year storm was adequate for them. The OCFCD said this area was protected for a 100-year storm. Since the City Council was the policy making body, if they indicated that a 100-year storm protection was adequate, then this should be the answer. ; ~' n.~..~.... , ~ ` -- , i1 _ r I , " ~'. ._ -- --- _-----~-- ~ ~ MINUTES,CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~une 14, 1971 TE ~_) 71-380 NTATIVE MAP OF - Commissioner Gauer observed that new information was ,`~ TRACT N0. 7458 being received all the time - the most recent was the ~-~4~ (Continued) desilting of the dam - the water now coming into the dam was silting as it hit the first obstruction - this would not close up the dam since silting was distributed farther back. Chairman Herbst stated he just wanted the letter which would state the dam would hold a given type of storm. ~'~~~ " Commissioner Gauer stated that he visited the Prado Dam many times, and at ~,~; no time was the dam filled, but now they had cut down the amount of water that could go under the bridges, and with such narrow areas, it was more i~ ; likely that the channels would be filled to capacity, even though the channel ;s` had been straightened out - when the City had the next big rain, he would go ;':_. out to see how much water the channel had in it. Furthermore, when all these ~~ `i homes were built, there would be considerably more pavement and, therefore, more water would be draining into the river compared to the amount going into ~"~ the river now. He was just wondering what the City yias doing to the people ~: who might buy a home in that area. He would not vote for these maps until the "not-a-part" had been includefl in a map. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to deny_Tentative Map of Tract No. , 7458 on the basis of his foregoing statements. Commissioner Farano seconded - ~: the motion. 'The'MOi•ION CARRIED by a vote of 4 to' 3(Commissioners Allred, ;,~ Herbst, and Seymour voting "no"). ~ TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7459 - DEVELOPER: HARVEY A. BERGER, 3333 West Coast Highway , Suite 200, Newiort Beach, California. ENGINEER: Lander Engineering 1782 W ~ ` '' , est Lincoln Avenue, Suite H, Anaheim, California. Subject tract i r '` , cons sting of a portion of a 47.15 acre parcel located between the futur ,;;` ' ~ e extension of La Palma Avenue and Esperanza Road approximately 8500 f t ~ , ~ ee northeast of Imperial Highway, is proposed for •:.c; :::F subdivision into 94 R-2-5000 zoned lots. 'f ,.~ ' " Subject tract was 7458 and 7460. considered in conjunction with Tentative Map of Tract Nos. ; ' ~ , : r; Commissioner Rowl 7459 and offered a motion to deny Tentative Ma of T ~ ~ on the basis the motion. The p ract No. of his foregoing statements. Commissioner Farano seconded MOTION z'~ t Herbst,,and Seymo CARRIED by a vote of 4 to 3 (Commissioners Allred, ur voting "no"). TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7460 - DEVELOPER: HARVEY A. BERGER, 3333 West Coast Highway S it 2 ~ , u e 00, Newport Beach, California. ENGINEER: Lander Engineering 1782 W t i , es L ncoln Aver.ue, Suite H, Anaheim, California. Subject tract consi ti :~ , s ng of a portion of a 47.15 acre parcel located between the futur e extension of I.a Palma Avenue and Esperanzi Road approximately 8500 f eet northeast of Imperial Highway, is proposed for subdivision into 76 R-2-5000 zoned lots. k, Subject tract was 7458 and 7459. considered in conjunction with Tentative Map of Tract Nos. j '_ , ~ Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to deny Tentative Map of Tract N 7460 on th b ` '. e asis the motion. The M o. of his foregoing statements. Commissioner Farano seconded OTION ~;j..~;,,'; CARRIED by a vote of 4 to °(Commissioners Allred, Herbst, and Seymour voting "no") r~ . _ k-' ' '; ,,~t ~',~ I',~ I 'f ` ~, _ .: .. ,~, _..- ~ ...._. . . . ~ r ` _ ~, ~ _~~ ~ ~ ~ • _a i i M' - :<. . ' I' ' ~ , .~s. ~ ~ ~/ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 14, 1971 71-381 VARIANCE NO. 2266 - PUBLIC HEARING. MERVIN AND SHIRLEY DANFORTH, 1426 South Adria Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK, (2j MINIMUM REQUTRED STDE SETBACK, (3) MINIMUM REQUIRED NUMSER OF GARAGES, AND (4) MTNIMUM DTSTANCE tiETWEEN BUYLDINGS, TO PERMIT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESTDENTIAi, STRVCTURE on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land ha•!ing a frontage of approximately 70 feet on the east side of Adria Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 120 feet, and being located approximately 92 feet north of the centerline of Buena Vista Avenue, and further descrtbed as 1426 South Adria Street. Property presently classi- fied R~1, ONE.-FAMTLY' RESTDENTIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, the waivers requested, and the proposal by the petitioner to expand an existing single-family home by convert- ing an existing garage into a playroom and adding a second floor to said garage for a bedroom and bath, together with additional storage space in front of the ex:lsting garage; that a r.ew single garage was proposed together with an attached carport which would be within 19 feet of the front property line - however, the garage could be relocated an additional foot to the rear so that the m:tnimum required setback would be similar to that required in the R~2-5000 Zone; and that it would further appear that there was no reason why the structure could not be reduced by one foot to obviate the need for the required side yard variance. However, if the minimum iront setback were reduced, this would also reduce the number of feet between buildings. Mr. Mervin Danforth, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he was available to answer questions. Chairman Herbst inquired whether the petitioner had read the conditions and the findings of staff regarding reduciny the size of the garage to eliminate rvatver cf the min3mum required side yard and to provide a minimum of 20 feet For a front setback. Mr. Danforth repl;ted that he would be agreeable to providing for this and would, therefore, wtthdraw th~ waiver of the minimum required side yard. ; 2on3ng Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that if the front setback were increased, this would reduce the minimum distance between build- ings from 8 Peet to 6 feet, therefore, waivers (a) and (b) would have to be modified, changing the minimum front setback to 20 feet and the minimum distance betwer,.n buildings to 6 feet. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC71-115 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition ror Variance No. 2266, in part, sin.ce the petitioner had withdrawn waiver (b), minimum required side yard, and modifying waivers, making the minimum required front setback proposed as 20 feet and the minimum distance between buildinqs as 6 feet, and subject to conditions as stipulated to by the petitioner. (See Resolution 8ook) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by ,e rollowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbsl., K:.tywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS; N~ne. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner 5eymov.r left the Council Chamber at 4:42 P.M. I h' ~ : ~ ~ ;; ~ ~ MINUTSS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~une 14, 1971 ~~ I I 71-382 ~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. PETER AND AUDREY WARNOFF, P. O. Box PERMIT NO. 1243 4148, Anaheim, California, Owners; BOB L. WALLACE, 3019 P7est Ball Road, 4naheim, California, Agent; requesting permission for ON-SALE SEER IN AN EXISTING HILLIARD PARLOR on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped oarcel of land having a frontage of approximately 150 feet on the north side of Ball Road, havinq a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet, and being located approximately 190 feet west of the centerline of Beach Boulevard, and fur~her described as 3019 West Ball Road. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses e~tablished in close proximity, and the rroposal to permit on- sale beer in an existir.g billiard parlor; that no physical changes to the premises were contemplated to accommodatA the proposed on-sale beer; that the Commission would wish to determine whether this use was appropriate in this location, particularly in view of the residential structures to the west; that recent inspections of the premises had revealed that there appeared to be at least two illegal signs on the premises, and the Planning Commission might wish to discuss this signing situation with the property owner and perhaps have the signing brought into conformity with the existing ordinance; that since landscaping was almost non-existent on the site, the Plann~ng Commission mkgAt wish to consider whether it was desirable to require that the parking area landscaping be brought up to Code standards; and that since the Pour parking spaces adjacent co Ball Road would almost be bisected by the ne~,* xight~of~way line, it would appear that the required 3-foot landscape area could be provided in the remaining portion of these parking spaces. Mz. ~etex Warno~f~ the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted he was the praperty owner and was present to object to the conditions set forth by staffr that when he built the property, the street lights were paid for, and he would never dedicate the 3 feet since he would lose three parking spaces, thereBy reducing the required parking from 37 to 35 spaces. Further- more, the homes to the west would be required to dedicate since the street al~gnment h*as a stra3ght ltne extending 800 feet westE:.ly. Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that street improvements might be in and a straight line might appear to be on the right-of-way line - however, at the time the tract was developed, a 53-foot street dedication wa.s provided, and this additional 3 feet was within a setback area from the street. Mr. Warnoff inq;~ired where power lines would be placed if this additional 3 feet were required. Mr. Titus noted that from information he had, there was an 11-foot area from the curb parking area, and that a 42-foot width was dedicated from the center- lir.e of the street for the R-1 parcel to the west in addition to the 11-foot curb area, Commissioner Allred inquired whether the petitioner had any objection to providing landscapingf whereupon Mr. Warnoff r~plied that to provide the landscaping he would lose the parking that was being required, and when the building had been constructed, no landscaping had been :equired. Commissioner Seymour returned to the Council Chamber at 4:47 P.M. Commissioner Allred noted that the petitioner was asking for a more intense use of the property, and as such, the Commission would like to see the property developed in a better manner, if this building were to be constructed now, it would be required to do this - therefore, this was the reason why additional conditions ~were beinq imposed. Mr. Warnoff then noted that staff's comments regarding the sign violations - he had reviewed the Sign Ordinance and could find nothing to which staff had commented, 'Mr. Slaughter noted that the Sign Ordinance had very specific requirements, and if the sign di3 not fall within these requirements, then the siqn was #.llegal, _-_-~~_.~.-:-...._~..:.T , , ~ ~ `` { -{ -,., ,,_ . ~ r ~ ' , (~ L~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 14, 1971 71-383 ~ CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Warnoff stated that the lessees had provided the PERM=T NO. 1243 signing with his approval and had a licensed contractor (Continued) paint them. ~° :~., Commissioner Kaywood left the Council Chamber at 4:52 P.M. Chairman Herbst noted that the Commission was well aware of the fact that the petitioner had illegal signing and was not in accordance with the Siqn Ordinance. ~-,-:-~~.;..- Commissioner Gauer in uired as to th s ~: i':' :' r~^ . f ', .~t _; "F ti : 4 e manner in which the billiard parlor was being operated, and would children be permitted to purchase beer, or could some~ne of legal age purchase the beer for a minor. Mr. Wallace, agent for the petitioner, advised the Commission that he would ~ be ~hecking their IDs, or persons working for him would do so; that there ~ was no beer in the vending machine; that although he was somewhat frightened by the prospect of setling beer, he could assure the Commission that no one could psrchase beer. until he had checked his ID - however, most of fi his clients were twenty-one years of age or over and were now going elsewhere ~ to play billiards or to buy their beer. Furthermore, it was important ~ that he persc>nally be responsible for checking the IDs since he had much more to lose than he would be gaining by having the sale of beer with the billiard parlor. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE liEARIIvG WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Kaywood returned to the Council Chamber at 4:54 P.i~. ~ Commissioner Farano inquired as to the number of billiard parlors that were ~ in town in which the sale of beer was permitted, t Zoning Super~isor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that there were very ~ few, and one that he knew of was on Orangethorpe Avei~ue. ~ Commissi.oner Farano inquired as to the number of billiard parlors in Anaheim; ' whereupon blr. Roberts replied that he did not knorr the number. Mr. Wallace replied that there were two that he knew of - several had just closed up - and the only two in the west end area waa the one on Beach Boulevard at Lincoln and his. However, he could not speak for any billiard parlors in the east Anaheim area. Commis$ioner Seymour noted that there were beer bars that had pool tables, and the agent for the petitioner replied that his only i:iterest was to serve beer if cuatomers requested it. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-116 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1293, subject to requiring conditional dedication at such time as the City Engineer requested ~ dedication for street widening purposes, and conditions. (See Resolution Book) i On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMM=SSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS; Farano. i ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:' None. ~ ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood. i Commissioner Farano, in voting "no", stated he d3d not feel the property owner should be treated as harshly for requesting a very simple use by requiring all of the conditions as set forth in the Report to the Commission. i,:. _ ~ ` C -. a , C .'~ ~ ~ :.~ (~ ~] - MINUTES, CITY PLANN7NG COMDtISSION, June 14, 19;1 71-384 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ALAN R. TALT, ET AL, 615 South Flower NO. 70-71-57 Street, Los Angeles, California, Owners; ANACAL ENGINEER- ZNG, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangular].y- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 20 acres, having a frontage of approximately 660 feet on the south side oi Ball Road, having a m~.ximum depth of approximately 1,200 feet, extending southerly to Winston Rc,ad and being located approximately 330 feet west of the centerline of Sunkist Street be reclassified from the COUNTY OF ORANGE R3,1200 APARTMENT DISTRICT, to the CITY OF ANAHEIM R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, existing zoning in the County, and the proposal to establish 69 R-3 zoned lots, with schematic plans having been submitted to indicate how the property could be developed if the zoning were approved; that the Anaheim General Plan indicated the area north of Omega Avenue, which bisects subject property, as being appropriate for medium- density residential development - therefore, it would appear that the R-3 zoning request was appropriate for the northerly 600 feet. However, the petitioner was proposing to extend residential uses southerly to Winston Road, which was in direct conflict with the Planning Commission and City Council's stated land use policy as set forth in the General Plan and Area Development Plan No. 94, wherein multiple-family developmEnt terminated with Omega Avenue; and in the area development plan Omega Avenue was proposed to extend easterly to and terminate at Sunkist Street; that Omega Avenue was also proposed to act as a buffer betvreen the industrial and residential uses, and approval of subject petition would inject further residential uses into the Southeast Industrial Area, Furthermore, the Commission was aware of the complaints that had been made by residents of the mobilehome park located on Douglas Street aPter this residential use was approved in the County over the objec- ttons of the C~ty~ oP Anaheim, and similar reactions could be expected if th~s res~dential expans~.on were approved. Mr. Slaughter concluded by stating that at the direction of the City Council, representatives of the Development Services Department appeared before the Board o£ Supervisors in opposition to County zoning of Lhe property south of Omega Avenue to residential uses - therefore, it would appear that the previous Planning Commission and City Council positions denying multiple-family residen- t:tal zoning in the area south of Omega Avenue were appropriate and should be reafftrmed. `..1 Mr. Cal Queyrel, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before t' the Commission and stated that the entire concept of the Southeast Industrial Area had changed over the past six to eight years, particularly with the inception of the stadium, and in recent years approval of Pacific World which ., had ground~breaking but had not started construction, and the total of these two facilities was several hundred acres; tha.t it was not what the need for residential ver.~us the need for industrialsdevelopmenttinmine Anahetm was~or for any other city, and the same c~iteria could be applied for e~ther zoning~ that it was not necessary to discuss the relative merits to a c:~tg oE the various uses since it was difficult to define; that there was more need for multiple-family housing than there was for industrial, and the industrial picture had been changinq with Philco Ford terminating tReir operation in Anaheim; and that Autonetics would make a decision soon that could a~fect the major portion of the operation in the city. .`,I Comm#ssioner Csauer inquired what these decisions would do as it pertained to the need for apartments - wouldn't it mean that with less employment, would it do away wtth the need for more apartments? ?, Mr. Queyrel stated that this did not necessarily mean less demand for apart- ments since it would take some time to fill the need, but many people would still live in Anaheim while working elsewhere. ~ Chairman Herbst was of the opinion that the Commission and the petitioner were "spinning their wheels" by the discussion just held, and then inquired ~, why would Anaheim en o its the past , P P year with jarticulareemehasis~inhthe Southeast1lndustrialnArearina increastng more than any other area, and many industrial chanaes had taken place in th~ Southeast Industrial Area. 1 .. .~c : v---• a ~ H:L'~. i ~ ~ .,Y ., . . ~1 , ~J ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 14, 1971 ~ ~..~/ 71-385 ~ RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Queyrel stated that there still was considerable NO. 70-71-57 vacant industrial land available in Anaheim, and Northrup (Continued) had offered a portion of their facilities for a city nall. ;.~+ Chairman Herbst countered that this was no longer available since it had been ~ leased by engineers, as was about 50,000 square feet of the Autonetics buildings. Mr. Queyrel noted there were a number of minds that were closed to any consideration of other than industrial use for the area, but times did change, ; and when the petitioner presented his request before the County a year ago ~~ and received R3 zoning, the County felt the R3 zoning was appropriate. 'L ; Mr. Queyrel then reviewed the proposed development, noting 39 fourplexes were c~ r> proposed for the property, each fourplex selling in the neighborhood of $70,000, ~~° and this could be considered income property with the owner residing in one `. unit, and that this would be an asset to the city rather than some future , ;~~ industrial development several years away. Furthermore, McKesson-Robbins had _ built their complex fronting on Winston Road after the property was zoned R-3 '~ on Ball Road, and there appeared to be no conflict with the R-3. ~;i~ ;I Mr. Queyre3 then commented on the Regort to the Commission regarding traffic conflicts on Winston Road, by stating that the plans could be amended so that ',~ no traffic would exit to Winston Road since the plans before the Commission ~; were only schematic, and there was no need to ha~e these two streets indicated S.~ exiting to Winston Road - thus giving the industries located there more privacy. Furthermore, Mr. Talt had indicated that he would lease the property along _i;~ Winston Road to industry on a seven-year lease basis foz $1.00 per year, __ provided that industry paid the taxes since taxes were a problem for anyone '`Z. holding property for a more intense use; and that aqricultural land use or the land bank consideration for the property would mean the petitioner would have to leave it. in this preserve for ten years to realize any relief from taxes, since if the property were sold, all back taxes would have to be paid in accordance with the use. `~ Mr, Queyrel then noted that serious consideration should be qiven to the progosal since, if approved, this would provide a density of 14 units per acre, or iow~medium, and under the County zoning, thep would have been permitted .,'.~ 30 units per acres and that the proposed development would have a limited numJ~er of School children because of the high rental fees which would be from ;;~+ $175 to $225 per month. ~ ~~~t~~ ~_;: , S'.' ~.. : ~ .Y ,r, : ~:: ,;„ v: : ; Z : ~ :akx Commissioner Allred inquired whether or no* the petitioner would consider apartments only for the northerly 600 feet, terminating at Omega Avenue; w:iereupan Mr. Queyrel stated that this could be done - however, there were two p:Ceaes of ~p,roperty under consideration with two separate owners, and one might wish to develop all the way to Winston Road, which would create a hard- ship for the adjoining propcrty, but they were requesting R-3 zoning all the way to Winston Road because there was no industrial development immediately adjaaent to the property. S ~ j , Commissioner Allred was of the opinion that approval of R-3 to Winston Road would eliminate any further industrial development coming into this area, particularly with Sunkist Street being extended southerly through this area and ~:~ith the £reeway proposed to be constructed within the next several years, this would be prime industrial land; and that the industrial development would be preferable to residential uses adjacent to the £reeway. Chairma~ Herbst noted that in light of all the public hearings that had been held in connection with the area development ~lan as we11 as the reclassi- ' fication of the property to the west wherein the Planning Commission and City Council and industrial representatives and the property owners attempted to determine where the dividing line should be, if Ba11 Road was not to be considered as such, in order to provide a buffer between industrial and residential uses, the area development plan was considered acceptable, and except for the apartments that were built adjacent to Ball 12oad, the growth in that area had been industrial, and he, personally, would not break down the guarantee which the City had given to industrial people that the line would be held at Omega Avenue, thereby providing a street and adequate landscape buffering between the two uses - this guarantee hacing been given just two years ago - and this was the first request to consider approval for further '.~ ~ ,- ~;~::_ ~'~' -., . ~ . . . . . r~ ~ . -- ~ .i.~., ':+'A r'. _ •. ~.';~ . .. ., ~ - . . ~ ~ '. . . . ~ . . ., . . \- _ '' i _ . ~ _,., , ~ ~ ~.J ~l MINUTES, CITY PLANNING ~'OMMISSION, June 14, 1971 71-.;86 RECLASSIFICATION - breakdown of the industrial area - however, t:~e pe*•+,rioner ~~. 70-71-57 was very well aware of the City's feeli.ngs .r•..~~a.rdi.ng (Con*_?nued) maintenance of the inte rit oE g Area than to consi.der asking ~hetCetyctphrri:~~K+~~a~thr~ith the industrial pc:r:~le. Therefore, he cculiR n,:ver consider any R-3 below ~mega Avenue, or east ~~f' S„.nkist, since j.~rop~erti.~.*• adjacent to a ~reei~ay were considered prime i~i:;u,trial properties. Furi~.k~_rmore, •ahen the area •9evelopment plan was finally ad~pted, it represeln:ced a compromise of both industry and the pzoperty owners wanting resi.dential iises for their properties south of Ball Road, although any property owner ha<i a~ right to request any zoning for hi.s psoperty - this was no guarantee i.L would be given him.. Commissioner. (~au~er ~on~urred with Chairman Herbst's ccmments and noted that f t:,e area devr,+lnp~~ent plan s~et the a:tern; ~ ~~~ two years a.^,,~ w.ts also the petitioner of subhectt~1e ~etitioner at the meetirig was what he „ant~ed; that this would :;top any~furtheriintc+asi~nlintodthejs ~~^ industrial az~•a, and sub'ect .:' the petitionei w,;,s now proppsingito~exten~ residentiai uses torwinstonhRoad - therefor~, it wa=; his opinion that the Commi~;sion shc;uld re;tain Omega Avenue 1j as the delineation point between residential ar.a ;~, area, dustria.l uses in this ; ;:~ Mr. Merrill Skillings, chairman of the Chamber of Comme~:ce Industrial Committee, .~, aPpeared before the Commission in opposition and noted that he was eLso an ' 3~ employe,. of Northrup Corporation; that they were opposed to resi.dential encroachment which would vi~late the industrial integrity, boL:-~ :~r the ; sake of the 3.^.3ustrial develogment in the area, but it would alr~. inhibit ,=r,a potential nEw indu~trial development into this area and the comn~u.nity as - a whole, therefore, he wanted to e:vpport the Plan;iing Conmission ai;~ r_._t , Council's previocs position set. fozrh by recommending Zenial of the propoaed reclassification. ~ Mr. R. L. Ulrich, 730 North West E'*_reet ' Company, a ~ ~ pl4~at managr.r of rF~.:ville Chemical ' { ppearei beEore the Commi ;~i -.n i,, oF~po;;itian and rec;;:ested that the i - ~ City maintain the industrial II1tE'~ !'• • i Development Plan No. 94 and previ•~~:sYactipnntak~enaby`}both thetPlanninga ' 'i ! ~~ : Commission and City Council for f.his area after ~!fl_r,p public hearinqs on the ~ 1 matter wh3ch would limit any further residentia9. encroachment r~orth of Omega ii Avenue. ~ ? Mr. Zobe.:t Ko~tman, representing Pacific Scientific Com an ~ College Baulevasd and Winstan Road, a P Y located at State that us to their qualifications, theyPwereeoneeofrthehearlmmission and noted J .Ln the Southeast Industrial Area in I~57; when their companypmoved from located ,' ~ Clendale, and, Of course, they were relyi.ng on the inteyrity of the industrial zonincr wnich at that t,ime had a boundary a'~ Ball Road; that they had also I', 4 presented their pos3tion in the earlier P1a~nin~ Commissi~n hearinqs on this subject in 1968; that from a qualif.viny stan~9point, they had a three million dollar investment in 'cheir plant a•; this lora ' ;-:,k approxima tion and ha ~ ~;~," tely 200 oL•s d been ro-~idi :~ ] o:i an average over the P ng there; thxt they had been o pe•riod of time they had been 7 pposed a.il along, r'~.r many of the same reasons, any resid,ential encroachment since this was incompatible; that the ir_,•ompatibility of pedestrian and ~^dustrial traffic on Winston Road would be evid.ent ~o the integrity o£ the industrial area - therefor~, this should be consi.dered; t*:a;., - ideallyr, this was one of the top thrEe industri,al locations in Or.3nge i:ounty accordiny to an ERA report tc the Orange County Soard o.: Supervisora in 1964; t}~at pr'_me ~ndustrial sites were lia:iLed,, and •this scarcity would increase . ~? ccasiderably in t;~e futr:re; that if r.esidential encroachment cont±nued farther c:^uth than what tiad been agree6 upon, thr nature of residential uses would ~: ~~ influence this, since con~ideration would hsve t~ be sch~ol and park fac3lities that would hc n.;eded sincegthis to ~dditional ~ inczeas> the need for public facilities, ancl there might 1.epmoresr1 could than t1i.e exis::iag support facilities could hold; that one could notelthats ' promoters and deve2opers of R-3 property ware affering diff~rent types of inducements and concessi~ns to people mov.tng into these apartments - therefore, 't the need for R-3 wasn't nearly as critical as wa~ indica;:ed; that in operatina an industrial plant, the nearby resideibts woul~ bother the±r flexibility ~ of operation - for example, t.ruck traffic, nig'~t shift operational noises, , public address systems - all wtre incompatible •dith res~dential uses and ~' livin ~.:~ g patterns. In addition, another ~hing that could be considered, although they appreciated that the holding cost to an owner due Lo taxe~ would be taxing him, if one took the local tax b~ll, for ~~xe.nple theirs, there was ~ :~ ` d _ s. ~. ~ 71-387 , x~;~:1,AS5IFICATION - BbOUt 2.6$ of the assessed appraised valuation, and No. 70-',i-S7 _ looking at their bill~ for the past fourteen years, their _::,,:;.,,;: ~ (Continued) property had appreciated at an annual rate of 11~, and if the cost for taxes were only 2}8, one could still make quite a gain from a capital gains standpoint, but this might be• hara on a landowner, he would agree, since they were holding 5 acres ::hemselves in hopes of expanding their facility in the future, but • the•~ planned, to use i~: for industrial development only; that they initially i wanted the i.ndustrial lin ield at Ball Road, but in light of the previous i decisions by the Planning ..ammission and City Council, the applicants have y an opFortuni.ty to 3ev~lop half of their progerty and realize some immediate ,~'~~~`~; i:,omP if he could find an ac;..ractive R-3 investment in the immediate area. ~~~~ ~''~ Eurt;~;;rm~re, since ti~e Planning Commission and City Council decision in 1968, -r ~` ;~ there had :~een ;;an~iderable industrial deveiogment, namely, the Dunn property ;~~•;, .`~1~ at State Co11e~~e ~ynd Ball R~a3 and the Koll properties at Cerritos and State College Boulevard, as ;aell as McKesson-Robbins property, approximately 25 ' acres - therefore, the•re was no zoning question in that immediate area - considering the fa~•t that more than 25 acres had been developed for industrial our~:oa~s - he wou3ci s~agqest that the boundaries be retained since there ~ was st ll a lot of industrial growth - ev~n today one could find some construc- tioi; going on on the Koll properties, ther~fore, he would suggest that the Planning Commiss•i~n uphold the previous d~cision regarding no further encroach- ment beyond Omega~ Avenue in the Southeast Industrial Area. ~ : _ _ _ - --- - , _ __. . . . _ _.___ . __. __ _. .. :~ ,;. _. _ _ _ _ .. . __ ~, Commissionar Gauer expressed interest in the~•analysis of the tax and anpre- ciation incxement which Mr. Kottman.had presenteZ, sinr_e this was one oI the ~i major comxZs~tr~ts brought to the.Planning Commission when rezor_ing requests . ' were made, that taxes were too high - however, this would indicate that there ,~ was 3n a reci~ticn in their property if and ~ahen it was sold.' ~ ~ ' ~ `~ PP , '''..ij l THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ,n ~ Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to recommend to the City Council denial f o Petition £or Reclassification No. 70-71-.57 on the basis that the Planning : r ' y 1 Commission and City Couaail. projection that Omega Avenue was the delineation oint b t . ? ;~ ~ p e w~en the industriel and residential deveiopment; that no substantial ?:- _1 land usp cr,ange had taken place in the area that would dictate that the arca be chan ed f i .5 or res dential purposes; that statements irade by the industrial ; r~pzeseniat~ves that the area was a prime industrie'L area and industrial develo ment a p a s occurring in the area, together with the fact that the City ' ' :i >°;{ Council had recommended to the Orange Countv Board of Supervisors that subject '' : ~ . s'•;sv property not ~a zened to Wincron Road for zF,e:idential purposes. i~ ' ~ After further discussion, Chair„an Herbst inquired of the petiLioner wY:ethe: '; or not he would be 3~'rF±og~iE to considering R-3 zoning for th~: property north P ` o Omega Aventte rather than having full denial of subject petition b}• the . Piunning Commission; whereupon Mr, 9ueyrel state3 that the pet,ttioner would _ ;s~ ;: acc~pt satd zoning, u~ ,~ Commiss3oner Seymour then withdrew his motion. 4 ' Cirmm3sst~ner Seymour ofrered Resolution No, PC71-117 and m^vefl fo• i#s < _ , passage and adoQt~on to zec~mmend to the City Council that Petitior. foi Reclassifica- t~ nn Nc, 70-+7),~57 be ~~enied for the southerly 6~0 feet of subject property and to ;` approve R-3 zoning for the portion northerly of Omega Avenue for R-3 i i , A5u1t p2e-Fami7.y Residenti.al 2one, subject to canditiei~s. Mr, Itoberts inqulred whether or not the Comn~ission's action would also include ~ the conditions made appl:lcable to Area Development Plan No. 94 as adopted, ~* r which would include extending Omega Avenue to the east and proni3ing that a 6~foot masonry wall be constructed along the south property line of the street c~r as depicted on Area Development Plan No. 94, Alteriiate "B", I~av3.ng landscaping including 15-gallon trees, including irrigation facilities installed along the ~?,. full distance of said wall, and the owners of the r~roperty enter into an ~! agreement with the City to perpetually maintain the above mer.tianed landscape ;~ median, said agreement to be a covenant tu run hith the land, and that access rights to Omega Avenue. frum parcels south of Omega Avenue be deciicated to the C~? ty of Anaheim. . K''` i ~ " 7~"~~~"_~iVt~~.a1i: ~1''~~r~~w.~;dlLiRy1~~, „ r~~Yr~~~~_~~~a~~ I.:. Y . . . . . l. . •ii1C'::. . ~ ~ ~ . ~ _ • ~ , t, , ~ ` ~. '. . . .. . . . ~ .. . . . - . . . 1 ~ . . . . . `b :~ . ' ~ 1 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Seymour concurr~d that these should be made `i NO. 70-71-57 part of the motion and restated his mation as follows: .:~=-~w. ' (Continueci) Commtssioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-117 and ;i, ` moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the ' City Council that Petition for RecZassification No. 70-71-57 be denied for the southerip 600 feet for R-3 zoninq and approve R-3 zoning for the north- erly 600 feet, subject to conditions and the conditioas that the property be developed in accordance with Area Development Plan No. 94; that access _~~ ` ~ rights to Omega Avenue from parcels to the south of Omega Avenue shall bc~ "'•^ dedicated to the City of Anaheim; that a 5-foot masonry wall be constructed ~ ~ along the south property line of the street boundary as indiaated in Area ° ~` r Development Plan No. 94, Alternate "B"; that reasonable landscaping, 3ncluding 1 .-y 15-gallon trees and irrigation facilities, be installed the fnll distance of T;?.: ~ said wall, plans for said lan3scaping to be submitted to and approved b t.he `. Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance; and that the o•aners of subject property 1 ~ enter into an aqreement with the City to perpetually maintain the above ~ '' mentioned landscape median, the agreement to be a covenant to rur. with the land. (See Resolution Book) ; ~; - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: `' X AY'FS; COMMTSSIONERS: A.lired, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, ,.: ,,_x, Seymour. ;i~ ':~ NOESt CO'MMISSIONERS: None. _ ..;,.~; ;~~ ~BSENT: COMMISSION~RS: None. y ~'~ '~ `¢ RECLASSIP~CATTON - PUBLIC HEARING.. AIBERT J. YQRBA, 20911 Esperanza Road _ _ , N0. 70~7J.-55 Anaheim, California, Owner; WM..LYON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, x 3163 Red H:11 Avenue, Costa Mesa, California, Agent; ARiANCE NO 226 ,,~ ; v . 8 property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel h r °~; of land cons.+_sting of approximately 22 acres, having a ' ~ ; :: ' TENTATI VE MAP OF frontage of ,spproximately 1,330 feet on the north side > I = TRACT NO. 7416 of Orangethorp~ Avenue, having a maximum depth of ~ ~ r,=~x approximately 1,Sa0 feet, and being located approximately a " 155 feet east of the cPnterline of Concerto Drive. Property preSently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE ~I , , ~ and CUVNTY OF ORANGE A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT. ~ } k ` '~E~'U£STED CLASS~F~CATxON: ~~2~ MUZ,TIPLE~FAMILY RESIDENTIAL • ZO ~ , NE. '` ~ w `~ :~ 1iEQVESTED 'VSRi'ANCE: CONSTRUCT A 320-UNTT CONDOM INIUM COMPLEX WITH WAIVERS ~~ Ok C1) 1dINT'MUM NVMB~R OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, ' M~ (2) 24TNT'MUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACE STZE, (3) MINIMUM y " 'REQt1A~RED DTSTANCE BETWEEN BUILDTNGS, AND (4) MAXIMUM ;" . :; + ::=;i~ ' Btl~`LDiN6 IiERGHT [1~ITHItJ 150 FEET OY STNGLE-~AMILY ZONE , , ~ ~ ` ' TENTATI~'yE T•RACT REQVEST; DE'VELOPER: WM. LYON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY INC ~ , ., 3163 Red Hill Avenue, Costa Mesa, California. ,-_:.~•r,.-~ ENGINEER: WILLTAM G. CHURCS, Consulting Civil y Eng~neers, Inc., 3928 Campus Drive, Newport Be+ach, ~ -;;.ry=; ` ' California. Subjeot tract is groposed for sub•- ' ;f'`:. ~ `' ~~ divis~on into 5 R-2 zoned lots . • ; Ass=stant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of svbject J '. property, uses established in close proximity, and the pxoposal to establish : ~i~, :. - ~,~.:~ ,,.,, one a nd twoestorp statutory condominium com e pl x consisting of 320 units on al ` 1 ~ ~- r but the westerl y portion of the property where rental duplex units were ~ ~.. ~:~ proposed - however, no plans had been submitted for the duplex units; that ~ 535 covered parking and 61 open parking spaces were proposed, whereas Code :: I ^ would require a total o£ 600 spaces - however, not included in these figures r~;.;, .; were the 96 open tandem parking spaces that were proposed behind spaces in ~ the carports of each twu-building complex; and that the covered parking spaces ^~ ~ were proposed to be 9 feet wide, whereas Code would require a 10-foot wide space. ' Mr. Slaughter, in reviewing the evaluation of the project, noted that the ~.~j~ Anaheim General Plan indicated 1ow-medium and medium density uses as being ~~? '~a , ~'~ i. ~ ~~- ~. - ~- ' . ~'.~ :._ ~ f _~ . , . . . .. . .--J~ ` __ _ - _ ' . ... ~ ~ ~ ~ i ' ~ ^ Y ~ . . ~ _ . . ... . . . 1 _ ` #r:4 ~ 1 , - . _ ~ ~: ' :~~. ;«'r ?, .. ~; ~~<•, ~+: ~>: ,t, R ':.~e ;i' _ ,, ~ : ~ _ ~- ~ C~ C~ MINUTES, CYTY PLANNING COMMZSSION, ~une ld; 1971 ~:) 71-389 RECLASSIFiCATTOlv ~ appropr3ate in this area, therefore, the pro~,osal would NO. 70-71-55 appear to be appropriate; that the Public Works Department VARIANCE N0. 2262 had expressed considerable concern over the fact that the TENTATIVE MAP OF design of the project did not lend itself favorably to TRACT NO. 7416 ~+roviding an efficient method of collecting trash; that (Continued) the proposed mea:is of access to the parking bays appeared to leave a great deal to be desired since the applicant indicated the carports would be located at the end of each drire, with tandem parking to the rear of these carport spaces, and in order for a tenant to exit from the tandem parking spaces, it would b~ necessary to back all the way out of the driveway, a distance of approximately 100 feet, to a public street; that no provision was made for maneuvering sgace so that vehicles could head out to a public street; that 61 open parkir.g spaces were proposed on the project - however, th~se spaces were not evenly ~istributed throughout the development_ which would provid~ convenient areac for guest parking; and that the Plannirig Commission would wish to consider th~ impact of each of these items previously stated and ~erhaps permit the petitioner additional time to redesign the project so that these problem areas could be resolved. Mr. Davld Langlois, representing the developer, appeared before the Commission and stated this was being processed under the R-2 2one and would be ownership houstng only ~ or air space - although staff indicated there would be rental units. Commissioner Roh*land noted this would be tne sixth time the Commission had constdered condominiums, and as to the waivers requested, only waivers three and four of Lhe Report to the Commission might be considered. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether the carport spaces were only ~ feet wide, and was it true that a tenant would have to back out all the way from the parking space. Mr. Slaught~r noted that the Commission might wish to discuss the required ~ parking space width; that staff had counted the number of spaces - t;herefore, it would have to be d~termined by the Commission whether these were in conform- ance with City policy; and that if these were to be developed in accordance ~ with City policy, then ~here would be a far greater shortage of parking than ~ staff indicated. Mr. Langlois then reviewed the proposal as it pertained to parking, noting that after they had presented their plan to both FHA and VA, these two govern- mental ager,cies appro~:ed the concept as did other cities where a similar type 3evelopment was proposed; that the manner in which they arrived at the type of development was after spending three months reviewing arci:.itectural matter to determine the type of person who would be interested in townhouses or condominiums, and the study rev=aled that the persons most likely to be interested in this would be persons making $I0,000 to $12,000 annually, who were tired of apartment living and wanted something that would 'nave an invest- ment possibility, or older couples whose children had left and they now were no longer interested in maintaining a full-time home with all the maintenance coats for laAori that they were attempting to achieve a manner of single- ga+n:tlg residential environment where persons would have pride in ownership and units that appeared to be single-family in character, althaugh there was a considerably highe.r density; that fourplexes were proposed on either side of a courtyard, with a park3ng system that would enable them to surround the building on three ~iao_s with green belt areas, which, of course, was not like a typical alley system prevalent in most fourplexes; that this courtyard appearance would allow them to surround the units with a green area; that each unit would have indoor service facilities and a private patio; tnat a ratio of almost two spaces for each unit of parking was proposed; that after consider- ing the Report to the Commission, it was determined that the tandem parking spaces could be eliminated - however, the required 600 spaces still could be met if tandem parking were included; that the width of the carports would be 9 feet - however, the distance the tenant would have to back up would be only 27 feet., and there was adequate room for backing up within the cou~~t a~•ea, thereby eliminating backing into a public street. Chairma.l Herbst noted that the petitioner cou:d only provide the amenities he was discussing after a variance was appro~Ed, but additional waivers might be necessary if the Commission required Code parking widths of 10 feet for stalls. r 1' • _ . ~ ,,., .,r•. . . ,~ 7 : , ~ . .~ S .'~• ~ ~ ~ .. . - ._;.,,_ . , :_ .. , .. ~ :~ . .., .. . : :::_ - ..- ~ ~... ._. . . ~~ -~ . ~ .., . . . ~f. ~ . .%-- .. _::.: ... . . .. . . ~ ' . ' . ~ ' . . - . . . . . . _ . . ' ~ . . ~. . ' '' ' . , ~' ' .~b ~~:- ' ~i~ .._ '':i'. ~ ~ , , 1 ! ~ ~~ , ~ ~ f~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 14, 1971 71-390 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Langloi.s stated a variance would be needed to get the NO. 70-71-55 type of parking they were now VARIANCE NO. 2268 proposing. TENTATiVF MAP OF Commissioner Seymour noted that the distance of 100 feet TRACT N0. 7416 was considerably greater than most R-1 properties had to (Continued) back into a street; whereupon M*. Langloi~ stated that the driveway width was considerably greater than an R-1 driveway approach. Chairman Herbst inquired whether or not the tandem parking spaces would h.,ve to be assigned; whereupon Mr. Langlois stated tt^is would be covered under the CC&Rs which would assign parking for each unit. Commissioner Kaywood noted that if tenant pazking were assigned, this could mean a family would have to have both cars back out 100 feet into the street. Mr. Langlois noted that where the tenant lost in desirable parking area, he gained by the increase in am;unt of green area, and that the majority of the pedestrian movement wo~ild be along the pedestrian walkway, even though there might be a little inc~venience. Commissioner Kapwood observed that there could be crashes within the develop- inent if vehicles were backing out thie full distance while ~~ther vehicles were backtng out of their carports, Commissioner Rowland noted that he d~d not feel the Commission would express too much opposition to waivers fot minimum required distance between buildings or maximum heiqht within 150 feet of the R-A 2one if this would assist the developer in redesigning the project to provide tne required parkinq since the petitioner would have a battle before the Commission as to the balance of the waivers, although the City Council might be more considerate. However, with all the problems otner developers had faced to ol~tain their zoning, there might be some d3fficulty for this project; that the site plan propos~_d was exemplary and was greater than some of the others which proposed alley circulation - the McKeun projects used this successfully in other cities but not in Anaheim. Mr. Langlois noted it would be extremely difficult to rrovide the 10-foot wide spaces without changing the des?gn of the buildings. Chairman Herbst stated that he would be unalterably opposed to tandem parking spaces, particularly where residents of three apartments in a court would be required to back 100 feet into a public street, since he did not feel this was good planning, and that another problem was inade~tuate trash collection. Mr. Langlois 3ndicated they proposed to originally place the trash on a slab in the rear enclosed by a 6-foot masonry wall - however, this was not accept- able to the Sanitation Division-since this was similar to an R-1 use, the residents could carry their trash out to the street for street pick-up, as single-family residents did, and to insure that proper trash collection was observed, this could be made a part of the CC&RS, such as was done with landscaping and maintenance, and if th~ resident did not take care of his trasu, this would be done by the management and the residtnt would then be billed. Commissioner Rowland inquired of staff whether or not this had been reviewed with the Public Works Department as it pertained to establishing it as part of the CC&Rs. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that he was under the assumption that Mr. Spivak discussed the trash problem with the Superintendent of Sanitation but did not know what Public Works' respon,se was. Commissioner Farano noted that as the discussion pertained to the CC&Rs, it was his recollection that as a result of a rather strong legal precedent, unle:;s enforced vigorously and constantly, these CC&Rs would never be any good. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that since this was a landowner problem, it would not be enforced by the City. ~' E~ ~ 2:~.~ +~ - - _ - . ~~ • _ _. , _ • . .: ,; !~ _. - . . • .-. ~ •_~ ., ~ ~ ~ , _ 1 - , ~J ~~ ~ -- . -------- , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 3une 14, 1971 71-391 RECLASS=FICATiON - Commissioner Farano noted that unless the association NO. 70-71-55 was formed prior to development of the project, these ~~ VARIANCE NO. 2268 CC&Rs wouid be ineffective. ~ TENTATIVE MAp OF TRACT NO. 7416 Commissioner Seymour noted that if this were FHA financed, i (Continued) FHA would require that this be formed and that meetings be held so that these CC&Rs were enforced; that he could not i recall ?~~ condominium having such a specific problem as ~ enforcing CC&Rs unless the Commission was referring to Gramercy Park; aad I that one of the oldest condominiums in Southern California was located in ~ Huntington Beach, and this had been very successful in enforcing CC&Rs. I, ~ Commissioner Rowland noted that it was his understanding that the City 'j Attorney's office was w~rking out something that would allow the City to have an override regarding a special as3essment district which could be a backstop and would b= a method of protecting the CC&Rs. , i 4 f. . , >r' .,~ " ;^ . `~ ~ , R'' ~ .~i! : Mr. Lowry stated thait an assessment district could be established, and based on the fact that this was a statutory condominium, it was established as a non-profit orgaaization controlled by residents of the area. Commissioner Seymour noted that it was his understanding that both Ben Yorba and Modular Technology developments were covered by such an assessment district. Commissioner Kaywood was of the opinion that some other ~rrangements should I' be made rather than considering delivery of the trash to the trash ~ area at the curb on the street, such as the R-1 areas as su Pick-up ; ggested. 1 Mr. Langlois replied that the courtyard concept did not lend itself to the ~ type o: access trat the Sanitation Division wanted and that the homeowners ~ associat`.ion would be effective since it would be established before the ~ project was completely developed; that they woulcl be active within this project by teaching the homeowners association how to manage <._heir community, and tn many communities they were very strong siace if a good ~ob was done on ~ both 1$ndscaping and interior, there would be sufficient pride of ownership ~ to perpetuate that~ and that their experience had been this became a very { effect#ve ~ntethod of enforcing the CC&RS. Commtssioner Seymour noted that with all t'~e problems involved in the proposed development, he would suggest that the developer redesign the project since he would not approve a 9-foot parking area or require tenants to back out 200 feet to a public street, even though the developer suggested that there were other amenities that overshadowed these negative parking areas; and that it was possible there would be lesser density in the concept, although the proposed concept was a very attractive one except £or the problems that had been discussed. Mr. Frank Hampton, 1714 Concerto Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition and noted that his property backed up to the proposed tract; that their tract had 136 homes, and only those homes on Concertc Drive received legal notices; and that of the 136 property owners involved, 135 indicated they did not like tne proposed development, particularly since two-story buildings we~~ proposed. Chairman Herbst r.oted that the plans indicated only one-story within 150 feet of the R-1 property, and the waiver pertained only to the R-A property to the north. Mr. Hampton then indicated that he was not aware these would be rented or sold as condominiums - however, their single-family homes were now s~'ling in the vicinity of $26,000; that the petitioner was proposing 16.2 units per acre which, in his estimation, w~s more dense than low-medium density; that their school taxes were very high, and he could no~ see an older couple moving into a complex where many school children were l~cated immediately adjacent to it; that they also took exception to the fact that this would increase the cost of fire protection, although they had never had a fire in this area; and that this would also increase the need for City police protection. ;,__ , ~~= • _ .~ ._. . h : ' ' , __ r ~::~,~ dt . , O ~ ' ~ ' ~ a ` .'. . . .. _ .. i _ ~ . f~~:~ -- , ~ O i. ~ J ~ t~ ;~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIGN, 3une 14, 1971 71-392 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Philip Lockyer, 1724 Conce to Drive, appeared before N0. 70-71-55 the Commission and inquired what the distance was between VARIANCE N0. 2268 the condominiums proposed adjacent to the R-1; whereupon TENTATiVE MAP OF Mr. Roberts stated that there were no plans submitted for TRACT NO. 7416 the duplexes proposed for the westerly gortion of the (Continued) property, however, the R-2 2one would require certain setbacks, and the Commission in recent actions had required more t}:an normal landscaped buffering since they felt a wall itself was not sufficient protection. ~'~"' Mr. Lockyer then stated that sub'ect ro ert was an oran e r'?;; ] P P Y g grove, and the .a.,';;;'~; elevation was cunsiderably,higher than the sinqle-family homes - this, then, '=a created a drainage problem since his slab was over 5 feet below the grade of the grove. ';~' .,: Chairman Herbst noted that this problem would be taken care of by the engineer- -~~ ing requirements, and two-stor y, single-family homes were permitted by Code. ; Mr. Lockyer noted they were also concerned with the parking since, historically, ~` residents of apartment developments parked in the street and, therefore, would be parkinq on Orangethorpe Avenue or Concerto Drive, which would increase the traffic on Tango Avenue, and since they had many small children in this " tract, an increase in traffic could be experie~c~d, thereby creating traffic .;~ problems and problems for these children. Furthermore, the density proposed f was 16.2 units per acre, which was considerab,ly higher than the existing ~:1 single-family tract which had 4.5 units per acr~e; that they were also concerned 7 •ith the effect on their property values since they could not see where this ' development would be an asset to their property; that they did not feel `-N the owner of subject progerty should not develop~ his property, but the development should be in a manner that would zu~ot be at the er.pense of the ~ `I ;~ adjoin.ing property owners and would be more compatible. ~ Mr. Tom Smith, 1765 North Credo Avenue, appeared before the Commission in oppositian and stated that he was concerned with tr:iffic since if the access through their tract to and from the condominium was required, this would be a short-cut, and with so many small, children living in the condominium, it would be assumed they would b~ coming over into the single-family tract; that he had lived in a condominium for four years at Tustin Village, and although this was a nice townhouse, there was a crime rate which was out of sight, and it could be assumed that the crime rate in this residential area would also increase since if an owner of a condominium decided he did not like residing there and could not sell it, he would be renting his unit, and renters could not be members of the association - this would pose a problem as to maintenance. Mrs. Anna L. Pond, 5232 Tango Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and noted that she was one of those owners of a condominium which she could nct sell and was renting, and she would like to know what method could be used to enforce the CC&Rs since they were having a difficult time even taking these people to court to enforce them; that she was one of i those people who had moved out of their condominium, and as an owner of a _ condominium, it was very difficult to select the people who would live in the unit who would not be destructive with the property; that she was now living in a single-family residential area, and the schools were talking about going on half-day sessions; that having lived in a condominium, there never appeared to be sufficient area for children to play, so it was assumed that I:~ they would be playing in the street; that their children had become interested in ecology and were also interested in the'orange grove so that her children '~ had requested an answer to how they could do something to maintain the orange ~;' grove, she had informed the children that they could circulate a petition, `i such as adults signed, and as a result, she had petitions signed by approxi- mately 150 person~s in opposition, one which the children had circulated. The Commission Secretar.y read letters of opposition received. Mr. Langlois, in rebuttal, stated that the number of school children that would be emanating from this development would be far less than from a single-family residential development; that as far as generating traff.ic through the single- family tract, they would be more than happy to eliminate the access to the R~. tract, making this a sel£-c~ntained development. * ~.,-~ , .. _...,. . _ .. ~~. ~ , - -... ,: c, , .~ Y. : . _. 5 , •~ --_._.,,....~ • _ _ - I. d ~....__ ii r ~ - ~ S% 4 L ~;'a .~., ~: "-; i.._ `; '~~,' :; :'':~ ~ MINUTES, CITY pLANNING COMMISSZON~ June 14, 1971 ~ 71~393 2iECLASSTgTCATTON ~ Off~,ce Engineer ~ay Titus advised the Commission that NO, 70~71-55 the Txaffic Engineer had very strong feelings as to VARTANCE NO. 2268 requiring a~3itional access to this condominium facility. TENTATTVE MAP OF TPACT NO. 7416 Mr. Langlois noted that a final (Continued) see, the children would not be point, as far as he could goinq to th~~ R-1 since thay would have many open green areas - therefore, he doubted area. Finally, he would likectolhave a~one-monthacontinuance~forethersub- mission of revised plans but wanted the Commission to give him some indication that the R-2 zoninq would be compatible since re-drawing these plans would be considerably expensive. Commissioner Rowland noted that the Commission had made their commitment when they approved the General Plan in 1965, which indicated low-medium density and medium density for this area. Chairman Herbst noted that a tract to the west had been approved for R-2 but developed for R-2-5000. Mr. Slaughter noted that another R-2-5000 tract had been approved north of the high school site; however, to this date it had not been developed. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that based on the manner in which the property was proposed to be developed, staff would recommend that the reclassification be tied into the variance and tract because of the condominium concept. Commissir~ner Rowland noted that as far as reclassification of the property was concerned~ that was a foregone conclusion since the density had been establtshed on the General Plan for some time; however, as to circulation, he would agree with the homeowners that the proposed street exiting into the single-family tract should be closed off. Cha~rman Herbst inquired why the Traffic Hng3neer was so insistent that the circulation be opened into the single-family tract. Mr. Titus replied that based on the number of units that was proposed for this development and the proposed number o£ vehicles, there was a need for more than two access points from Orangethorpe Avenue, and the only one available was through the single-family tract. Commissioner Rowland noted that this was contrary to what the Commission had been requiring in the past. Mr. Roberts noted that there was an elementary school on the ~west side of Kellogg Drive and a high school proposed to the north - therefore, an easier method of gaining access to the school would be through this single-family tract. Commissioner Rowland then noted that instead of having vehicular accessway, this could be a pedestrian accessway only, Mr. Hampton advised the Commission that children were bussed to schooi, and there were no sidewalks except on Post Street; therefore, even the pedestrian accessway was unnecessary. Mr. Albert Yorba, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he would like to take exception to the comments made by the people that they did not want residents of the apartment project to look into their rear yards, when their children were using his grove for a playground, and the people were throwing all kinds of trash into his grove. ; Chairman Herbst noted that the Commission was considering land use onl ~ Mr. Yorba's problem was one which the Commission could not consider, Y' and '~ Mr. Yorba then noted that the property in this area had been approved for multiple-family residential uses, and when the developer of the single-family ~~ tract eommenced construction, he had informed him at that time that there would be a drainage problem. `- . -'~. . ;t: _ ~. !!6~S __. _.. -~~1'. ,, t '~ j;; ' .~ ;,~. - , - ~, ~ ~ -.~._._ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~une 14, 1971 71-39~3 ~ RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue NO. 70-71-55 consideration of Petition for Reclassification No. VARIANCE NO. 2268 70-71-55, Variance No. 2268, and Tentative Map of '~' TENTATIVE MAP OF Tract No. 7416 to the meeting of July 12, 1971, in ~j TRACT NO. 7416 order to allow the developer time to revise plans (Continued) amending the problem areas discussed at the Planning ~ Commission hearing. Commissioner Rowland seconded { the motion. MOTIOh CARRIED. -`;h .- RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY NO. 70-71-56 SAINTS, 10 Sauth Main, Room 214, Salt Lake City, Utah, ~' Owner; SHOWCASE HOMES, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite W, ~~~ CONDITIONA.L USE Westminster, California, Agent; property described as: xi, PERMIT NO. 1244 An irreqularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of =~ ' approximately 4.4 acres having a frontage of approximately i'~; `: TENTATIVE MAp pg 245 feet on the east side of Euclid Street, having a '~ . TRACT NO. 7439 maximum depth of approximately 491 feet, and being located ; •;>• approximately 660 feet south of the centerline of Orange- ;'-•. ~ wood Avenue. Property preseatly classified R-A, ,; " AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ~ A ~' REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. ~! +z mF ~ REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A 47-pNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WITH WAIVERS OF: (1) e '~ MINIMUM LOT SI2E, (2) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, (3) '!..-~~.~!% REQUIREMENT THAT A LOT HAVE STREET FRONTAGE, ~+t'~ AND (4) MAXIMUM PERMITTED BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN • 150 FEET OF AN R-A ZONE. ~ Y, TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: WM. ~T, KRUEGER, 14482 Beach Boulevard, 3:i1;~' .'..~ ~~ ?1 Suite K, Westminster, California. ENGINEER: ~,. j RAAB & BOYER ENGINEERING COMPANY, 14482 Beach e~ i• Boulevard, Suite I, Westminster, California. ~;~} ,~~ Subject tract is ro osed for subdivision into P P ;ca,,; ;,. Le•;~- 49 R-3 zoned lots. ,;'~: ~;.r ~t Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, aA ~'~~ uses astablished in close proximity, and the request of the petitioner to ~~~ ~;~ reclassify the property to the R-2 Zone, although the staff report indicated ~.,'~ the R-3 Zone, the density was within the low-medium classification; that the ~' +'~ petitioner was proposing to establish a 47-unit planned residential condominium *-'~~~~, development with waiver of the requirement that a lot have frontage on a 1~ r., dedicated street, minimum buildinq site area, minimum building site width, ~; ;~ and maxiasum heiqht within 150 feet of an R-A Zone as set forth itt the Report to the Commission; that the tract was proposed for subdivision into 48 R-2 a~: t~ zoned lots - however, the 48th lo'_ would be used for open space and recreation ~° a:f area; that the condominium complex would be a one and two-story development; ° ~,;. that there was no intent to provide only air space to individuals, and all ~, ^;~ improvements and qround held under common owners,hip would be situated on K~ postage-stamp lots which would be sold alonq wit&~ the dwellinq unit; that ~_ ~ since these postage-stamp lots were bsin ~ ~ frontage on a 4 Pro~osed, each lot would not have ~~_ ,,;~ public street, consequentl3•, did not comply with the definition ~~' of a lot as defined in the zoning code - however, each lot would abut a ~,_ '~~ vehicular accessway that would provide access to the garage for each lot; that 'r, ; none of the proposed units would exceed the height limit within 150 feet of ~` ~ any R-1 Zone - however, eight two-story units were proposed within 150 feet of 'r ;' the R-A Zone to the southwest of sub'ect ~~ " ] property on which two sinqle-family f~: ~ homes existed; that the Anaheim General Plan indicated this area as being ~,•..~',;;'E appropriate for low densit residential use, with the area to the north being ~~ T designated for medium density residential use - therefore, the primar 1 before the Commi~sion was one of land use; and that if sub'ect y quest3on z~ ] petition were ~' ~ approazd, consideration should be given to previous Planning Commission concern ~;` ~ reg:~rding bufferinq techniques that were to be employed where multiple-family ~: ' pr_ojects were proposed adjacent to established single-family subdivisions ,~~ ~ since subject property abutted R-1 property to the south and east; that a '`~ point of concern at the Interdepartmental Committee meeting was the fact that 5; prior to June, 1963, subject property, al•ong with a small parcel to the south- ~', west, was one large parcel. However, in June, 1963, the owner sold the large 5~,... f r,~' ! i~ t . . - ~ ~ ~ . " . .. . . ~ ~~ . _ ti , ~.; - . -... ~ . ~ " .. ~~ ~ ~ ~ 4~ ~ -, .. . .. . ~_;;~~: .... :.~+.: t * ~ ' l " ---- ____ . ; ~ . ~~ ~ t~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 14, 1971 71-395 RECLASSIFICATION - por~ion on which the condominium project was proposed and NO. 70-71-56 retained ownership of 'the s~nall parcel. This sale was CONDITIONAL USE was con&ummated without b~nefit of cc,mplying with City PERMIT N0. 1244 regulations requiring that a parcel map be submitted upon TENTATIVE MAP OF the sale of the propert~y - consequently, as far as the TRACT NO. 7439 City records were corecerned, this was still one parcel, (Continued) and in order to develop the property in the manner proposed, it would be nECessary for a parcel map to be filed showing ownerships as they exist, in fact. However, as a conditior. of approval of a parcel map, the owners would be requ~red to make dedication for street widen ing purposes along Euclid Street for the entire property frontage and install all necessary street improvements since if this were not accomplished, the small parcel would project 23 feet closer to the centerline of the street than any of the property from the southerly city limits to Oran,qewood Avenue. Mr. James Buffington, representing the developer of the proposed t.ract, appeared before the Commission and noted that they were not applying for a standard condominium but for a planned residential development, and that several eleva- tions would be presented to the Commission. Chairman xerbst noted that before the Commission would listen to the petitioner's, presentation, it was the Commission's opinion that because this property was illegally subdivided, it would be useless for the Commission to consider t~is until this problem had been resolved. ; Mr. Buffington noted that they had been attempting to work with Mr. Taylor to have him meet with staff to discuss this proalem, and Mr. Taylor had obtained an attorney - therefore, there was no way they could get Mr. Taylor to partici- pate in any discussion since he was looking at the possibility of a lawsuit stating he was sold the property under f.:lse pretenses, and as to dedication and improvement on Euclid Street, the modified cul-de-sac could be established on the south even though he wou13 have to obtain approval of Mr. Taylor as to dedication and improvement; and that he did not know whether or not this problem could be resolved. Chairman Herbst noted that since the developer did not have a legal parcel, it would be difficult for the Commiss.ton to consider this. Commissioner Allred noted that as a matter of policy, the Commission had required in the past that a petitioner provide his own buffering where he was proposing multiple-family residential units adjacynt to developed R-1, and this included a 20-foot landscape setback. Mr. Buffington inquired of the Commission whether they considered this a single-family use since each unit would be separately owned. Commissioner Seymour noted that the Commission was considering dens3ty, and this protection for the single-family was against this density. Mr. Roberts advised the Commission staff was in error in advertising the proposed reclassification for R-3 since it should have been R-2; whereupon Commissioner Seymour stated that even if it were R-2, the petitioner did not know how long it would be before he could resolve his illegal parcel problem. Mr. Roberts noted that Mr. Suffington and his organization had been very cooperative in trying to get this project developed. Mr. Buffington noted that the Commission's requirement of a 20-foot la~dscape setback would, in all probability, penalize his project out of being developed because for this he would suggest ta~ Commission view their Showcase apart- men~s that they had already built since they had received many very good comments; and that it was possible that they might reapply on subject property for another use. Commissioner Seymour inquired of the petitioner when he had purchased the property; whereupon Mr. Buffington replied that the property was in escrow, but they felt that it was a good piece of property, and that they were constructing a similar project of 87 units and had already sold 19 of the units. _ _ ' ^5 . ! ` i, S - ~:: ~ ~ t~ MINDTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ,7une 14, 1971 71-396 RECLASSIFICATION, - A gentleman in the audience indicated he was in opposition NO. 70-71-56 and stated he lived on Ord Way south of the vacant parcel CONDITIONAL USE and had been at numerous hearings before the Planning PERMIT NO. 1244 • Commission, as well as before the Planning Commission of TENTATIVE MAP OF the City of Garden Grove relative to a 111-unit apartment TRACT NO. 7439 aomplex approved and being developed adjacent to homes (Continvied) valued at $40,000 to $50,000 - therefore, he could not see building apartments on Fostoria Street exiting to Ord Way, and if apartments were approved, the homes adjacent to this property would not be able to obtain refinancing of their properties. Therefore, he felt the established single-family homes should not be subjected to undue problems. Commissioner Seymour left the Council Chamber at 6:45 P.M. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue consideration of Petitions for Reclassification No. 70-71-56, Conditional Use Permit No. 1244, and Tentat:ive Map of Tract No. 7439 for a period of eight weeks. After discussion by staff and the Commission, it was determined that a four- week continuance would be sufficient. Commissioner Kaywood then restated her motion as follows: Commissioner Kaywood ~ffered a motion to continue consideration of Petitions for Reclassification No. 70-i1-56 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1244 and Tentat9.ve Map of Tract No. 7439 to the meeting of July 12, 1971, to allow time for the developer to resolve an illegal lot split problem, and that the item be considered as the first item on the agenda. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. EARL F. CALLAN, 10634 Levico Way, West N0. 70-71-58 Los Angeles, California, Owner; MADYSON REAL ESTATE COMPANY, 600 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; VARIANCE NO. 2267 property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land at the northwest corner of Anaheim Houlevard and Midway Drive, having a frontaqe of approximately 327 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard and a~proximately 175 feet on the north side of Midway Drive. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSTFICATION: C-1~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED 'pARTANCE: WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES IN THE C-1 20NE TO PERMIT A MOBILEHOME AND TRAVEL TRAILER SALES LOT WITH SERVICE ~'ACILITIES AND TO PERMIT A MOBILEHOME UNIT TO BE USED AS AN OF~ICE. Assist.ant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the Report to the Commission, noting that the petitioner was requesting permission to establish a mobilehome and travel trailer sales and leasing facility, and presumably the servicing thereof whic2~ would be permitted as a matter of right in the C-3 2one - howPVer, the petitioner was requesting only the C-1 Zone, and given the automobile- related uses along Anaheim Boul~evard, the proposed outdoor sales and leasing activities would seem to be appropriate; that the Planning Commission might wish to decide whether it would be aQpropriate to allow the use of a mobilehome as a sales office since this may set a precedent for similar requests; that based upon landscaping requirements that had been imposed upon auto dealershiFs in the area, the Planning Commissio~ might wish to consider the same type of landscaping on this property; that the requirement made of the auto dealers had been to provide a 6-foot cvide planter area adjacent to the abutting streets and requiring the use of landscapimq approximately 1 foot in height with 2$ of the interior lot display area landscaped; and that while the Ftot plan did not indicate it, the property i~ to be paved - presumably this is what was intended; and that the Planning Commission might wish to question the applicant regarding this matter. Mrs. Ann Madison, agent for the petit.ioner, appeared before the Commission and noted they concurred with the conditions of the Report to the Commission, and the reason for requesting the C-1 Zane was that staff recommended this rather ~,~ _ -.3. „~+~-r _ i' ~ "±s~-`~ .:~~ _. . . ~;.G~a ~,1~ . ~ ~ , ;, y ~ ~~ - . " ~~., .~~ ~ ., - ~ ~ . . ~ _ .~ ..: ., ~ ~_~ ... . _ . __ . .. . ~ . ~. - .._i -- ..~. _ . . _. . • ~ 1 ~, ,,: , r;i '~s 'r:: ,9 ,::.' ,' r: . „ i ~~~ L~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 14, 1971 (~ 71-397 RECLASSIFICATION - than asking for C-3 since there would be more control in NO. 70-71-58 this type of use; and that th.e representative of the developer was available to answer questions on the VARIANCE NO. 2267 development. (Continued) Mr. C. L. Randolph, 120 Westwood Drive, appeared before the Commission and stated he had only one further comment as to the staff's recommendations, and that was the requirement of a 6-foot wall adjacent to the school since there already existed a chainlink fence and existing cypress trees, but if required to construct the masonry wall, they wou~.d so do. Furthermore, they planned to pave this area, and they were acceptable to any recommendations the Cc,Tmission might have. Chairman Herbst noted he was concerred with the proposal to use this entire area for servicing. Mr. Randolph noted that it was proposed to have these trailers on exhibit for the public; that it was a nevr recreational vehicle, and when tttese vehicles arrived from the factory, sometimes they had parts that did not function - therefore, the servicing of the vehicle would have to be doae on the premises; that an area was needed to hook up this facility in oraer ro determine what portions needed repair; that at the present time they d3d not know how many spaces that would be required for this servicing; and that if they sold a large number of these vehicles, perhaps many of these people would be br3~ging them back for a check~up and future repairs. However, they still, at this time, did not know exactly what they needed. Chairman Herbst noted that a very definite area and number should b•e specified since if the petitioner was planning 12 dump stations, he would not be in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Gauer observed that a similar operation in FulZerton di8 act offer anything that k~as desirable to the City, and how d3~d r,he getitioner propose to stack these vehicles along Anaheim Boulevard which gre,ently had a very attractive appearance, particularly with Buzza-Cardozo who always were concerned with the appearance of Anaheim Boulevard. Commissioner Allred inquired whether or not the petitioner was planning to sell and service other types of vehicles. Mr. RandoZph replied that he, too, wanted this operation to be beautiful and had asked staff what the minimum requirements were for this; that the number of stations they would need would depend upon business; that there were only four types of trailers ~ therefore, possi~ly six service bays would be adequate; that they did not plan to sell and service anything but this type of trailer; and that they did not intend to purchase or sell trade-ins - they would give this to people who handled used vehicles. Mr. Randolph noted further that staff had mentioned a mobilehome, and their only reason for requesting this was that in the event the proposed sales facility was not successful, perhaps they might be permitted to exhibit a mobilehome, as well; that they were anxious to get started with this develop- ment since this was the hottest item on the market; that he was receiving calls-constantly for a demonstration or display; and that they had been designated as the dealers in Southern California of this new concept to the area. Chairman Herbst was of the opinion that if servicing of this type of vehicle was proposed, he would prefer that this be dane inside of a building. Mr. Randolph replied that the only servicing they planned would be done inside the trailer unit, similar to a man coming to a home to repair items; that there would be no motor overhaul or rebuilding done at this facility. Commissioner Allred stated 1:~ ::ould disagree since there would be times when repairs would have to be done to the outside of the trailer, such as lights and even plumbing, and he spoke from experience since he owned a trailer, and he fF:lt that at least this should be in a covQred area, not necessarily enclosed; that automobile agencies had a"get ready" setup, and it would be apparent that purchasers would be bringing these units back if they did not '~~,,> _ ' - . , , ,~f , ~ _. ~ i ~ _ •m i 4: ~ i t ~ ~ ~ ~ - - :' ~ - _. - . ~ t I 1 VJ ~~~ MINUTES, CTTY PLANNTNG COMMISSION; ~TUne 14, 1971 71-398 12ECLASSIFICATION - function properly; and that he could see no reason for NO. 70-71-58 having more than two spaces a if more were needed in the future~,ethetpetit3oner~could VARIANCE NO. 2267 present a request in writing to the Commission. (Continued) Commissioner Farano observed that there many trailer sales facilities on Harbor Boulevard, and he didn't know of one that had as many spaces as was proposed, and some were not particularly attractive. Mr. Randolph distributed brochures of the proposed trailers that he was to sell; whereupon Commissioner Gauer noted that this was a very. attractive unit and should be displayed to its best advatttage - therefore, pr~per landscaping was in order, and that the City had been successful in maintaining the land- scaping requirements along Anaheim Boulevard, although they could have ~lone better in their requirements. Chairman Herbst noted that the petitioner was proposing tc utilize a mobile- home for office use, and if this were approved, ?~e would prpfer that it be limited only to the use as an office. Commissioner Farano noted that he would, in addition to statements made by Chairman Herbst, require that a time limitation be estblished for use of the mobilehome as an office sinr.e he did not feel this added anything to the display lot. ,:-:~ Mr. Randolph replied that it was their intent to make this a beautiful addition ~F and would epply screen portions as well as skirting this facility. ~ ~'' Chairman Herbst noted that the facility could remain on the premises after the ~ approved commercial use no longer existed, and this was one thing that he ,:,~~ wished to discourage. • .: ~. ' Commissioner Allred inquired whether or not it was the intent of the ~!~ y, to install the hook-up of the towing vehicle; whereupon Mr. Randolph repliedner ~,,t:_,~ that this would be done, and there were only four bolts that went down through ~-y;,:~fy' the body of the pick-up Erame, therefore, this could be done from the inside. ~~;~ Commissioner Gauer inquired whether they would also need space for storage t,~~~ ~~ of these towing vehicle trucks; whereupon Mr. Randolph replied that this was ~_' =k the reason for obtaining a large area; that since these vehicles cost only ' _~ 57,000 with the who would want somethingVVeryiattractive whenotheynretired;bthatethes~ryehicles ri' ~~ ~ wete made in Iowa and it was hoped to sell them to the public; and t:~~.n in '^~ response to a question by Commissioner Allrp3, stated that these pict-up ,i K~ vans would be sold as an integral part of the unit and would be show„ on the property - however, there would be no repair work done on the trucks, "' only the sale of said vehicles. ~':,;~ ; ' Mr. Randolph, in response to questioning by Commissioner Herbst, noted that ~ they would not be selling other ~ypes of automotive eguipment, only those ` vehicles which were in the brochure would be displayed ~or sale. ~ ? The Commission then requested that the petitioner set forth everything that he ;'Y intended to do - since Anaheim Bouevard was considered automobile row, the types ~' of uses now being presented should be clearly set forth. ~ 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that most of the ' ; auto dealerships were in the M-1 2one, and if it was the Commission's feeling "s,> ~' that the use was appropr33te, even with the proposed rnotorized vehicle, an f ;. additionxl finding could be made that it was the applicant's intent to sell < . these motorized units, and the City Council could advertise them correctly at 4" ; the time the reclassification was considered since it appeared there was a ",, question in the mind of the City Attorney's representative, Mr. ;,owry, that ':~, travel trailer sales was the only thing that was advertised. j ' Mr. Randalph, in response to questionin b they needed an address to escablish themselvesmmand~they were~locatedtin ahat mobilehome at the present time. `~':~ No one appeared in o `. ~ . pposition to subject petitions. ~_ !~,~,, ;_ ,F~.. ' . . . . . . ~ ~. . - , . . . . . . .~ ~ . . ~' _ . ' ..r.._. ' ('.~: .1"`J." \ ~ . _ ~ ~ ~ - .. ~ . ~ .. .~ . . . .. , ~ .,. ..... . - . , _ ...... .. . . _ . ~a . . . _ _ . ~~ . . . ._~ . ~ . • . .. _ .t ~ ~ 1~ _ () /` . _ ~,> t~ , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 3une 14, 1971 71-399 RECLASSIFICATION ~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. NO. 70-71-58 Commissioner A13red offered Resolution No. PC71-118 and . VARIANCE NO. 2267 moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the (Continued) City Council that petition for Reclassification No. . 70-71-58 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: .-•.!:-- AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. ;.,.'`', NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. F i: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Seymour. '~ ,: ?~ Commissioner Kaywood oFfered Resolution No. PC71-119 an4 moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2267, permitting establishment of a travel trailer sales and service facility, together with display of automotive towing equipment on the property, utilizing a mobilhome as an office, subject to providing a 6-foo~ kide planter strip with concrete curbing around ,~: it, adjacent to Anaheim Boulevard and Midway Drive except for driveway openings; ,~ landscaping to be 1 foot in height in said planter; that a minimum of 2~ of the interior display lot should be landscaped; that r3ense landscaping shall be provided along the west property line adjacent to the existing chainlink fence to adequately shield the commercial use from the existing school; that =:-, the use of a mobilehome as an office shall be granted for a period of one year; '<' that the outdoor sales and service activities shall be granted for a period of one year fo allow time to determine whether said use would be detrimental to the area, after which time if the petitioner requests an auditional period of , time, it may be granted; that a maximum of two sewer hook-ups for testing ~, purposes only shall be permitted, provided, however, that these sewer hook-ups shall be of such size that nc~ residential use of the facilities would be possible; and that the planter strip and dense landscaping shall be complied with prior to the commencement of the activitiea authorized, or within 180 days. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ` AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Seymour. I ~I " STREET NP,ME CHANGE - PLJBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, I '` 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to consider ' ~~ a street name change for Orange S~reet, .located between Blue Gum and Red Gum Streets in the Northeast Industrial Area, to La Cresta Avenue. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the loc«t?on of the street, noting that the name Orange Street conflicted with the name of Orange ' Avenue which was assigned ta an arterial street in the southwest portion of '~ Anaheim; that surrounding properties were primarily undeveloped; that a street name change at the present time should present a minimum of inconver.ience and '- confusion to the residents in the area or the general public; and that staff : would recommend that Oranqe Street be renamed La Cresta Avenue. a ~ *; ~! ` : No one appeared in opposition to subject ~etition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. , Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-120 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Orange Street located in ; the City of Anaheim in the Northeast Industrial Area between Blue Gum and Red i Gum Streets be renamed La Cresta Avenue. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. • ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Seymour. ~~_;> -~ . .. . ., :.: . .. ,. ,. _ . ~ . _ ._ (' ' , . -- _ ,.,. - ~ ~ "'~ 1 ~ _ ~ ~ , d . . '. . . . _ ~ . r ;' ;._ ; ~ ~.~ ~ MINUTES~ C~T~ ~T~ANNING COMMISSION, June 2y, 1971 '~J 71-40~ REPORTS AND - TTEM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITION~L USE PERMIT NO. 1143 (Romo and Sotomayor) Request for an extension of time - Property located on the east side of East Street at 744 North East Street. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the request approved on December 29, 1969, to expand an existing child nursery to permit a maximum of 56 students and 6 staff inembers; that Condition No. 3 of Conditional Use Permit No. 1143 had not been complied witli, which required a 6-foot masonry wall to be constructed alonq the east property line end a bond to be gosted with the City to guarantee the installation of said wall within six months from the date of approval;.and that staff would recommend a six-month extension of time ye granted subject to installation of the required wall within sixty days since a number of complaints had been received from the adjacent single- family property owner to the east. Commissioner Kaywood was of the opinion that the petitioner should also be required to improve the landscaping on the property. Commissioner P.owland offered a motion to grant a six-month extension of time for the completion of conditions in Conditional Use Permit No. 1143, provided, however, that the requ~.red 6-foot masonry wall be constructed within sixty days and that the existing front landscaping shall be improved. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM NO. 2 CONSIDERATION OF STREET NAME CHANGE FOR WALNUT CANYON RJAD. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that staff would request that the Commission consider setting for public hear- ing consideration of a street name change for Walnut Canyon Road to Anaheim Hills Parkway. Commissioner Farano o£fered a motion to direct the staff to set for public hearinq on July 12, 1971, consideration of a s=:•eet name change for Walnut Canyon Road to Anaheim Hills Parkway. Commissianer Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM NO. 3 CLARIFICATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON VARIAN~E N0. 2258. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the Planning Commission had been supplied a copy of Resolution No. PC71-97 granting Variance No. 2258 - permitting "0" lot lines, and inquired whether all findings and conditions met with the Planninq Commission's action. Chairman Herbst noted that all Commissioners had reviewed the resolution and had determined that the intent of the Plann.ing Commission had been set forth accurately in said resolution; therefore, said resolution was acceptable. AJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Allred offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. <',?~ Commissioner Farano sec~nded the motion. MOTION CARR=ED. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Li~~?~~ '~ky2:~-e/ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ` ~__-_-~ _ f-~. ~. ~~. ~ 1 i ~ ~ .-. "y~~ ~~.h~~r ,c ~~ ~~,.S~ '~"~p'~ b~pa{'~~ i +~,~, ~ 7y,"~3'~ ° , ~~ „~ ~~T r~t~ 3'~ jc q1~5 F '~t~'~~ !Y ~~p~g~~ t~ [ ~} J 4 ~` ~~G~ T ~~j ~ ~"^ti,~~ ~~{ . "+~~` t ~~'~, ^~ ~ffy~ }p?i i..~t'4 .~en~ 1 . J ! ~ rT 1 ~ .F4 ~ ti~"~'~ .'> '~~ ?~- ~~~~~ S T t,~t~q'~+~"i~~ f4" ~ mtf~`~' yrs' .~r.ir-t ~'~~~"`,~` • ~ a L- 4~~`vs~ F.tN~~ ~ t . +'.~. ~` L' ,(L ~~rV`~,~, ~ ,'?~F~ ~?h~--F~~'n.`4~'~ r,++ G r ~~. r 7 afi"+. Jt ~~'i'R' t.r ~. ~~~ . ~ .s...~~a ~ CrT. . ~ ~~ ,y .. .. L v ,~ ~ r~ ~,~ ~,~ . . ~ r 1 Y 1 '~ "'. 7 R'J i J f1~ " FC'~ . x, ~ „a..a. J f+SYl t r . ,ir' ,4 ~iVwr r~i f M$. t r s n r, 7'. } ,~~~ [~. r~ n*.r Y'k '~"".~.~~Y' ~.y.y ~i,?r~. v "'y ~~ ~r ~ c -. t- . ~g q : ~,~ i~: ~t~d... ^YS ~Sn ,x tt, F .'.tr ~. ~ ~ ~ ~+n s ~~'~`+ . u.3'(~.~ NF „~s„y.j{fM'~~: f ~"-4 ~b\~ .' ~r ~ , r ti ~ ~ ~ ~ 1Yl dJq,.~ }~ ~ ~y~, ~~, 4~~ yrt ~Y.~",, .: ~,t f ?,K ~ : ~ ii , y~ .~ .-. . ~ ~ ~~ ~~L~''y~`.,,F'*k iF~~. ~h i°Fs.''' f',aPA~'~'~~~~ui ~~4'~ ~~ r~ f yr1A :' Ir { Y: 4 r~.tn4i ~~Y.ny+R t ~~ ~ F~}i @ ~'Y "C tiy, w y ~., e r i ~'`~ a .~ ~ nr .. ~~ ~' ~ t,q ~F a+ < akr. ls R 7''~w~. +•~- is~~~ taiT,P , ~~.w i! ~s~ ... ` ~a ..x ~ ~ ~~t 1: ;r ~.. r ,' ~! ~r.i~Zwy S ~ ~,~ t; ~ t lt C .:; ~ .~ ~ } - i ~ , f ~ . r Jr'y c.~ j .. qc,i~~~,~ ~ ~ }~ 1 3t:. y i, t N ~ t, ... ~ _ 5 >' ,yl ~i ,.'~ t t r L~~ 4 ~ ~ ~ .. r ~~ y~'vri ~ f~,.` N: :,. ~ L 1 ~ ~ J _ ~ ~~~V~v~~'~.hrY ;. ~~ ~ ~ j T' r . h ~ :. y ~ FT ~F:1'~ ' Y~ ~,~ T ..~.. ~ ~ '.` ` . ~ ~..- y ~ r ~ ~ ~ t t ,~ F l 7 ~` p S. ~ , r~ / ~ ~ ~` ~ y iY ~.. ~ r.1 ~;1 'f 5 Y ~ t 1 I ts ~ ~S ~ 1 r a r~ ~ , ,~: ~~~~ 3 t ~ ~ e . ~~ .. ._ _~~. ~~R' ~~:r.,~ _:..: _...:. _~ ., - R ~ ~~r ~ ;,:j - s r~ . J 4 Y A~ S y k`'( r ~ J -'1' - ..,~3. ) f' ,y i~ 7 t 7 ~ 1 i ~y ': . ~. ~. ~. ~.-.i :.~: '.;-: .: - ~. . '.. .; .. ... '::. :.: ~ ,~' , ... ,-. , y, r ~ ~ T xf t ~ 1 i' _ Y ~' fz /. •f. ,... .. . ..f,..... . ~. . ~ . . .. . . ~_. . i ._. .. . .. . ~ ~ . C .. -. . z , ~ r. - . ~, - .F t Z :. f ,~ ~ 1 ~. ~ f , ' ...' v - . ~ 5 ~ .A. t ~,/~, fi.~~ .r 2 ~ 3 6 y~.. ) { r~-1. I '~. ~ ~Y • ~. `' S ~~ ~. ~ t x ' ~ ~ ~ ~ : F : i '' /o ?. .F.J~. '+~ ' t' ~ A~ r ~. ~ s i ~ J M i~` ~~ r ~ 1 ~ ' y ( Y G.? ?~& r S ~ i Y . ~ u~ ~~ ~. 4 ( T 1 y.. ~~t£~,~1 ti ~ ;_-xY,~,Ckt N~ u . '~ ~^ry~ ' ,~ ~ • i- 7 ,,~ p { ~." ~t~ '. ~ x3 ~ ~ ~ i a=..~ ~ yt~ .c. ~ k '~- ~ ',.... ~ . ..~ . .`~ . t -S, }" `' .:F' f . . ~t,mwt . . . . . .. . . ... . . . . ~. . . .. . • - . . . . .. ~..~ ~ iT ( ' ~ . ' E