Minutes-PC 1971/07/12s
A~
_ . 1~
p
j
i
, ~ „ ~. . ~ ... . :... . . . ,,~... . ,- . . .,.. . . . . .
~..~~ , ~. .'.. ~ , - . ~.. .~ . . . . .~'. ' . ..
.. .
.
. , ~ ~
.
'
, .
.
..,
. ,
,
. . .
~ ~ , ' ~' ::~ Y.. .'.~ .~. . . :i..., . . .
~ ~ . . . - .. . -~
. . . . . . . . . ~ . ~,~
~ . ~ - . . ~ ~ ~ .. ~ '~~
~ . . ~
. ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~.~
' . . . . . :I , . .. '
. ... ,,, . .. _. _ . . , ., ~ - . . . . .
~;: ,.~._ ., .. . _. . . . :. . ~~.,-• . ... . ... • . _
. . ~' - ~~. . , ,~'.. ,, .. r . _ ., . .~_ ~ .. .- ~.~ ~ .- ,.~ .-'~ .~ . .
~
~ . _.._.. ~. ~~~ -....~ ..:.~. ...` ~, ~: ~. . . ' :~~'~ .._~
- . -~ . , ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ .~ .. . . . ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ;~
. ~~, ' . ~ : ~ ~ ..... ....., , . ~ . - . .,. , . _ .,a . . .
;
_.. ~.. '., . . ~... ... .:. .' . ~.:, ~. . . . .: ~ . . '
~ .. . . ~ ' ~ ' , . . , . ~ . -~ 1
. ' , ' ' . ~ ~~'s~ ~ ~
.. . . ~ ~ . . . ~~ ~ . . .
I k,
.
~
~
; ro
~'r`-!iro
v>
.
~
. . . ~ .
~
. I yF W
~
~ ' f
~
l ~
- ~ .
~ "
,~ ~
! ~ ~'
, ~ '
f ;i .~
-' ..,~
{~
1 ;O
O
~
-
. . .... N>`
.
;~0,.
'b
. . . . , ,. J~
:N~:
. ~
~ ~
~ .y .. - .,
. . .
r.
. ~ . ~
~ ' . . .. , . . ~ . . . , ~ . . . ~ .
~ ~ r
~~ " . : _ i
{~
~
,
..
~ 1 f ,.~ ~ .
C
h~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Y ^Ji. ~~
K"'~"'~l~w ~I
~ ,,._`'-~'di~ ..... ~.`.,,, ._ .y
4 ' .
~ .
:;s :::i b:= .~,,,,
- - . ~..
~ 1i~. .~u ~'~_ _",
'~ . _
~F
t
(
~
~
~
I ~ I
:
.
..
------- --- __ __ .. _.~----
. -- ___.~..,._------.e...a...~...
~ ~ ~ ~~
~
City Hall
Anaheim, California ;
July 12, 1971 I
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COkMISSION
~REGULAR
MEETING - A regular ^2eting of the Anaheim Citx Planning Commission ~)
was called to order by Chairman pro tem Farano at 2:00 P
M
a
b }
.
.,
quorum
eing present. 1
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: Farano.
- ~COiIMI55IONERS: Gauer, Rowland, Kaywood, Seymour.
ABSENT
- COMMISSIONERS: A11red, Herbst. ~
PRESENT - Assistanc Development Services Director: Ronsld Thompson
D
i
I
eputy City Attorney: ~
Frank Lowry
Office Engineer:
Jay Titus
Zouing Supervisor: ~
~~
Charles Roberts
Assistant 2oning Supervisor:
Don McDaniel
Commission Secretary:
~
Ann Krebs
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Gauer led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag. ~
ELECTI~N OF
1971-72 - Chairman pro tem Earano anpointed Commission2r Gauer as ~
tempvrary chairman. ~
OFFICE RS
Temporary Claairman Gauer opened nominations for Chairman ~
of the Anaheim City Planning Commission for the f::
scal ~
.
year
1971-72.
Commissioner Rowland nominated Commissioner Farano as chairman ~
and moved that the nomin~tions ~e c~ d
d ~
„an
a_y~~~3
be cast. Commissioner Seymour~ote 9~~iaf`~ e v
~w
~
o
a
with CommissiorrlFarano abstaining. ~
~
Chairman Farano assumed the cha.ir and opened uominatioas for
-a
~$
Cha?rman pro tem of the Anaheim City Planning Commission for
the fisa
l ~
a
year 1971-72, 3
Commissioner Kaywood nominated Commissioner Sey~.~our and moved ~
that the nominations be closed and a unanimous vote be cast ~
.
Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. Upon tallying the
vote the Commission Secretary noted that the vote was 4-0
with Commissioner Seymour abstainir:~.
Commissioner Row3and o~fe;red a motion to appoint Ann Kre~s as
~r
Dlanning Commission se
e:tary for the fiscal year 1971-72
.
Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTI0~3 CARRIED
~;
unanimausly. .
i
a
Commissioner Gauer expressed the appreciation of the Planning ;
Commission for the Commission Secretary's unseiEish continuous i
servi•ce for the past nine years.
APPROVAL OF - Minutes of thE meetinq of June 14, 1971, were approved with '
THE MINUTES the following corrections on motion by Commissioner Kaywood,
seconded by Commissioner. Gauer, and MOTION CP_RRIED:
Page 71-378, paragraph 10, line 16 should read: "having lived
fcir thirty or forty years."
Page 71-383, paraqraph 2, the time should read: "4:42 P.M."
Page 71-349, paragraph 4, line 18, should have the followinq
added: "that no automotive mechanical repair work
be performed on the premises;"
~ 71-446 '
~ - -- ,~
- C
" ~ \ ' ,r _ i
;w _ ~
~;
~ ,~
~
_
_ 1
,
~
; ~
~w~~~
.T
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JULY 12, 1971
t, --.-,.~. .~
~
71-447 (
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINiIED PUBLIC HEARING. CHURCH OF JESIIS CHRIST Of
,~_ NO. 70-71-56 LATTER DAY SAINTS, IO South Main, Room 214, Salt Lake
' ~ City, Utah, Owner; SHOWCASE HOMES, 14482 Beach Boulevard,
CONDITIONAL USE Suite W, Westminster, California, Aqent; property described'
•+ PERMIT N0. 1244 as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 4.4 acres having a frontage of approxi- i
TENTA~TIVE MAP OF inately 245 feet on the east side of Euclid Street, havinq
TRACT NO. 7439 a maximum depth of approximately 491 feet, and being '
_ located approximatel 660 f t ~
x> .
~.
w.
t, -
1
('. _ y `
~;: ,
~
i.,
cj
~~i
`.~! ~
y ee south of the centerline of (
Orangewood Avenue. Property presently classified R-A,
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILS RESIDENTIAL, 20NE.
REQUESTE~ CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A 47-UNST PLANNED RESIDFNTIA'L
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WITH WAIVEFS OF: (1)
MINIMIIM LOT SIZE~(2) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, (3)
REQUIREMENT THAT A LOT HAVE STREET FRONTAGE,
AND (4) MAXIMUM PERMfITTED nUILDSNG HEIGHT WITHIN
150 FEET OF AN R-A 20NE.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: WM. J. KRUEGER,14482 Seach Boulevard,
Suite K, Westminster, California. ENGINEER:
RAAB AND BOYER ENGINEERING COMPANY, 14482 Beach
Soulevard, Suite I, Westminster, California.
Subject tract is proposed for subdivision into
49 R-3 zoned lots.
Subject petition was continued from the June 14, 1971 meeting to allow time
for the petitioner to resolve the illeqal lot split prc,blem.
Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon MaDaniel. noted for the Commission that the
developers requested an _dditional two-weeks time in which to resolve the
illegal lot split problem.
~ommissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration af Reclassi-
fication No. 70-71-56, Conditional Use Permit No. 1244 arid Tentative Map of
Tract No. 7439 to the meeting of July 26, 1971 as requested by the petitioner.
Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
VARIANCE NO. 2257 - CONTINTJED PUBLIC HEARING. ADOLPH W. LEMKE, 12522 E1 Roy
Drive, Santa Ana, Califoznia, Owner; HALL & FOREMAN. INC.,
TENTATZi~E MAP OF P. O. Box 11667, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting
Ti~ACT NO. 7426 WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT WIDTH, APTD (2) THE
REQUIREMENT THAT SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURES REAR ON ARTERIAL-
HIGHWAYS TO PERMIT A SINGLE-FAMILY I,OT PROPOSED TO SIDE-ON
SANTA ANA CANYON 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 af 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.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: L. A. COUNTY LAND COMPANY, 111 East
3rd Street, San Dimas, California. ENGINE~R:
A'ALL & FOREMAN, INC., 2530 North Grand Avenue,
Santa Ana, California. Subject tract is proposed
~ for subdi~~ision into 39 R-1 zonnd lots.
Subject petition and tract were continued from the meetings of May 17, June
2, & 14, 1971 to allow the petitioner time to resolve access problems with
the Orange Unified School District and to submit a revised tract map.
Subject petition anil tract were continued from the meeting of June 14, 1971
to allow the petiti~~ner time to resolve the street problem with the Orange
tJnified School DistLict, and for the submissian of revised plans.
~
~ ~;
,.. .. ..
i~~-
~ , , s -, ~.
.~..+.n~
. ' . ~s -
_ __-. 's~' _
- '~ `
'. . . ~. ' ~- r ~ _
i
i
~
~
;_;
~ ~l
..i
~
3~
~-',~
_i
,:~
~
~;i
,~
~
MIPiUTES, CITY pLANNING COMMISST.ON, JULY 12, 1971
.._____._'___._~.____-.-_~,..~,,.u.q.., ..
S J ~
t
I
~
71-448 j
VARIANCE NQ, 2257 - Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel advised the
TENTATIVE MAP OF Commission that the petitioner had submitted a letter
TRACT NO. 7426 requestzng an additional two-weeks time to prepare a
(Continued) revised tract map. Commissioner Rowland offeXed a motion
to continue Variance No. 2257 and Tentative Map of Tract
No. 7426 to the meeting of July 26t 1971, to allo~± time
for the developer to submit a revised tract map. Commissioner Seymour seconded
the motion, MOTION CARRIc.D.
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. GRACE E. DI~CKERSON, 252 South
PERMIT NO. 1239 Elder Street, Anaheim, California., Owne~r; ROBLidT SINGER,
2692 Main Way Drive, Los Alamitos, Caliiornia, Aqent;
requdstinq permission to ESTABLISH A MOTEL AND A REST-
AURANT WITH ON-SALE LIQUOR on property described as:
A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximate.ly
371 Feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of
approximately 254 feet, and being located approximately 780 feet west of the
centerline of Cliffrose Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL
COMMERCIAL, 20NE.
Subject petition was co~itinued from the June 2 and 28, 1971 meetings to allow
time for the submission of revised plans.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon Mc DaniEl reviewed the location of subject
property, uses in close proximity, existing zoning of the property, and the
proposal to establish a 63-unit motel in conjunction with a 3,000 foot rest-
aurant facilit~~; that plans for the restaurant were somewhat sketchy; that
the revised plans still indicated kitc3:en facilities for all units, and there
had been no su,bstantial change in the number of parking stalls proposed; that
staff was under the impression, as a result of discussion at the previous
public hearing, :hat the Commission was interested in having the petitioner
provide either parking in accordance with apartment standards, if the peti-
tioner intended that each unit have kitchen facilities, or reduce the numbe-
of kitchen units to a maximum of 258 of all units; and that the Commission,
therefore. ma~ wish to clarify this matter in order that the applicant would
know how to proceed. •
Mr. Louis Miller, architect, 403 East Wardlow Drive, Lonq Beach, appearea
before the Commission and stated he could not recall at the last Public hear-
ing that the Planning Commission specifically stated the requirements regardin9
kitchen units as set forth in the Repost to the Commission, however, the
owners stated that in order to operate a successful motel, all units would hav:
to be provided with kitchen facilitiies.
Chairman Farano noted that in reading the Minutes, it would appear that
Commissioner Rowland expressed the feelings of the Commission in that the
petitioner should express his choice of the manner in which he proposed to
develop and if all kitchen facilities were proposad, then the parking stand-
ards of the R-3 2one for 758 of the units wou13•have to be met. Therefore,
it would appear very clearly that the Commission expressed their intent and
there was no question about it; hcwever, if the petitioner desired, staff
could read the Minutes.
Mr. Miller stated there was no ne~d to have the Minutes read, but as he could
recall the Commission did not specifically state their intent; whereupon
2oninq Supervisor Charles Roberts read the Minutes at the direction of the
Chairman.
, Mr. Miller then stated that there was no question that the owners warted a
~^otel and if it was the concensus of the Planning Commission that parking ;
would have to be as set forth, then they would have to go on the basis that
25~ of the units could have one parking space per unit, while all other units ~
- would have to provide parking in accordance with the R-3 Zone s•tandards.
~ Mr. Miller, in respoase to a qu~c~ion by Commissioner Gauer regarding the
restaurant and separation of the cocktail lounge from the dining area, stated
that the plans submitted were only tentative plans, and a tenant was needed
before precise plans could be submitted; that he formulated plans for many
t~ restaurants, therefore, he could only present preGise plans when a tenant
,~ expressed his plans for a said facility.
;
_ ' l~
.
~
J
~ A ~R
• .:~ i
e
1
71-449
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 12, 1971
i CONDITIONAL USE - Chairman Farano then stated it would appear that the con-
PERMIT NO. 1239 census of the Commision's feelings had been expressed along
i (cont'd) the lines of the Minutes, and did the petitioner wish to
~ ~ discuss this on the merits of the present plans, or would
'~ he prefer a continuance for the submission of revised
plans whicl~ met with the Commission's suggestions.
Mr. Miller replied that the owners were desirous of having a decision on
the present plans, however, one of the owners was present, and might wish
f'' to speak on this subject; and that he had nothing more to add.
.,
J Mr. Robert Singer, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
and stated their parking met the C-1 Zone
.~~ spaces er Parking requirements, and if 1
P unit was required if kitchen facilities were ~
appear•there would be a sur lus of Provided, it would
~ ! P parking as well as creatinq considerable
more blacktop than qreenery; however, he wishe3 to assure the Commissior.
it was their intent to ~perate a motel that would be catering to families,
particularly where they were cominq to the City as employees of the aero-
~ space industries; and that a survey of other motels serving industry indi-
cated the majority had kitchen facilitie~, hawever, if the Commission
required that they meet the R-3 Code parking requirements when kitchen
units were proposed, they e•ould comply.
Considerable discussion was then held between the Planning Commission and
the agent for the petitioner regarding the parking requirements, and the
manner in which it should be met, and upon its conclusion, the Commission
advised the petitioner that if all units were proposed with kitchen units,
; only 25$ of the units could be calculated with one parkinq space per unit,
,*1 while the balance of the units would be required to provide 1~ parking
;~ spaces, and this miqht mean reducing the number of units to accommodate the
J extra parking; an~ that a motel defini~ion was a place of occupancy for one
] to three nights; however, where an apartment effect was proposed, such as
.+ kitchen units available to guests who could stay months, a need for more
-, parking was evident.
Commissioner Rowland noted that the requirement as set forth in the Minute:>
would place this development in the same position as other motel developers
in the community, and the reason behind this requirement was based on the
fact tha'~ the city had experienced similar situations, thus the requirement
was necessary to protect the community values and environment. Furthermore,
the R-1, R-2, R-3 2ones reflected this community attitude with more open
space and environmental amenities for a living facility. Therefore, if the
petitioner desired to have all kitchen vnits the on-site parking would have
to be provided.
Chairman Farano then noted that it would appear to him that the petitioner
would be using these units as substandard apartments, and ±hat this was the
reason the Commission was so insistant on viewinq this proposal as an R-3
project which would require more parking.
~ Commissioner Seymour suggested that the architect meet with staff to work
out the parking problems.
' Mr. Singer advised the Commission that when a tenant was obtained for the
restaurant, they would comply with Code parking requirements, but requested
that the Commission take actiun makinq these requirem~nts of approval.
Chairman Farano then• noted that since the petitioner indicated a willingness "
to meet Code and Commission requirements, he would suggest that the petitioner
accept the continuance whicti the Commission would prefer, since it was pos-
sible the Commission could deny this petition, sinc~ th~e present plans did ~
not conform. i
Commissi.oner Seymour stated he would like to hear from any opposition before '
~ the Commission qive further direction as to the manner in which the revised
plans should be presented.
~ ~
.~!
I R ~
: lt-'
.. . _._n_. . .. . . _ . . .. ~ ~ - ~ ' + ~ ' - ~ * - . -~r~(-~ ~ ~, ~ ~. . . ~ '
- . ~ ~
I ' I ..
;~ - ---. . _ ._~ ----- _-- _
_ _ ~ ~, `~ ----- ,~
, MINUTES, CITY PLANTING COMMISSION Jul 12 1g
~
' Y ' 71 71-450
CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Dean Faulkner, 1631 L•'ast Oak Place appeared before the
PERMIT NO. 1239 Commission and stated that he presented his opposition at
the June 2 meeting; that he was not opposed to the motel;
but he was concerned with the height of the wall, since
the present wall was not 6 feet in height, he would sugqest that an 8-foot wall
be required since there had been troub2~ at the other motel to the west where
there were shootings and people jumping the lower wall in an attempt to escape.
Therefore, he felt an 8-foot wall would be a deterrent which would di.scourage
persons from jumpinq over the wall.
2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that if subject petition were continued
to the July 26 meeting, revised plans would have to be in the office by Friday
of this week, in order that they might be considered at the ICPS&GW meeting.
Chairman Farano inquired whether or not the petitioners would comply with the
opposition's request that an 8-foot wall be constructed; whereupon, Mr. Singer
replied that they would be happy to comply since he had been the builder of
the R-1 tract adjacent to subject property.
The Commission then directed that the petitioner provide 1~ parking spaces per
unit for all units in excess of 25$ of the total number of units; that the
existing circular drive indicated on the plans be retained; and that an 8-foot
wall be provided where by adding courses to the ex~sting wall would s.uffice.
Mr. Roberts noted for the ~
an 8-foot wall was made a requirementanittwasenotlpossibleatoladdhany~addihen ~
tional courses to an existing wall because of engineering structuring, then
said wall would, in all likelihood, be an entirely new wal],. !
Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continue consideration of ~onditional
Use Permit No. 1239 to the meeting of July 26, 1971 to allow time for the
petitioner to revise plans incorporating the sugqestions made by the Planning ;
Commission, and if the existing wall was not sufficiently enqineered to Permit
adding additional courses, then a new 8-foot wall would be required. '
;
Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~
VARIANCE NO. 2269 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. RALPH L. RICKMAN, ET AL,
1740 North Santa Fe Street, Space 20, Compton, California,
Uwners; HAROLD BUTLER, 120 North Mc Pherson Road, Orange,
California, Aqent; requesting WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
THAT PARCELS OF LAND HAVE FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET, TO ESTABLISH SIX (6)
ILLEGAL PARCELS AS CONFOP.MING PARCELS on property described as: A rectangu-
larly-shaped parcel of land having a frontaqe of approximately 194 feet on
the north side of CCatella Avenue, havinq a maximum depth of approximately
615 feet, and beinq located approximately 284 feet west of the centerline
of Clementine Street: Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAI,, ZONE.
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of June 28, 1971, to allow
time for the attorney ~or the petitioners to resolve problems.
Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel advised the Commission that a request
had been received from the attorney for an additional two weeks' time for
the petitioners to resolve problems,
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to conta.nue consideration of Variance
No. 2269 to the meeting of July 26, 1971 as requested by the petitioner.
Commissioner Ro~land seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
VARIANCE NO. 2272 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM KIIGEL, c/o Summit
MORTGAGE INVESTORS, 555 Fifth Avenue, New York, New
York, Owner; COLDWELL, BANKER & CO.., 550 Newport Center
Drive, Newport Seach, California, Agent; requesting permission to EXPAND A
NON-CONFORMING, FREE-STANDING SIGN on properxy described as: A rectanqularly-
shaped parcel of land consistinq of approximately 10 acres located at the
~ northwest corner of Buclid Street and Crescent Avenue, having frontages of
approximately 620 feet on the west side of Euclid Street and approximately
_ 739 feet on the north side of Crescent Avenue, and further described as
~ Euclid-Crescent Square. Propert;- presently classified C-1 and C-2, GENERAL
COMMERCIAL, ZONES.
++h!
w_`,,
_ ' ` ~
i i
'i /
_.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSYON, July Z2, 3g71
~.7 ( - \~,
_) ~
71-451
VARIANCE NO. 2272 - Subject petition was continued from the June 28, 1971
(cont'd) meeting to allow time for the submission of revised plans. ~ •~\
Assistant 2oning Supnrvisor pon Mc Daniel advised the Commission that a request
had been received for an additional two wee3:s'time to present revised plans.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue consideration of Variance
Na• 2272 to the meeting of July 26, 1971 to allow time for the preparation
of revised plans as requested by the petitioner. Commissioner Rowland seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ALBERT J. YORBA, 20911 Esperanza
NO. 70-71-55 Road, Anaheim California, Owner; WM. LYON DEVELOPMENT
Company, 3163 Red Hill Avenue, Costa Mesa, California,
VARIAIICE NO. 2268 Aqent; property described as: An irrigularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of ag,,:roximately 22 acres,
TENTATZVE MAP OF having a frontage of approximately 1,330 feet on the
TRACT NO. 7416 north side of Orangethorpe Avenue, having a maximum depth
REVISION NO. 1 of apprax~~i~tely 1,500 feet, and being located apgroxi-
mately 155 feet east of the centerline of Concerto Drive.
Property presently classified R-A, AGRICIILTURAI, ZONE and
COU1vTY OF ORANGE A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT.
REQIIESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: CONSTRUCT A 318-DNIT CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX WITH WAIVERS
OF (1) MINIMUM REQIIIRED PARKING SPACES, (2) MINIMUM
REQDIRED PARKING SPACE SIZE, (3)MINIMUF! REQUIRED
DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, AND (4) MAXIMUM BUILDING
• HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE-FAMILY ZONE.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: WM. LYON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. INC.,
3163 Red Hill Avenue, Costa Me.,a, California.
ENGINEER: WILLIAM G. CHIIRCH, Consulting Civil
Engineers, Inc., 3928 Campus Drive, Newport Beach,
California. Subject tract is•proposed for subdiv-
ision into 5 R-2 Zoned lots.
Subject petitions and tract were continued from the meet3ng of June 14, 1971
to allow time for the petitioner/developer to submit revised plans.
Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon Mc Daniel reviewed the location of subject
property, uses established in close proximity, existing zoninq, and the pro-
posal to esta~lish a 318-unit one and two-story statutory condominium; that
sinyl~ story duplexes were proposed along the westerly portion of the develop-
ment, however, plans had not been submitted for these units; Ehat the revised
plans indicate parkinq stalls now were in conformance with Code, and tandem
parking stalls had been eliminated; that the distance between buildings was
also in conformance with Code; that none of the two story buildings were within
150 feet of any R-1 2one; that the General Plan reflected low-medium and medium
density uses as being appropriate in this area, therefore, the proposal
appeared to be in conformance with the General Plan; and that the Public
wozks Department had been quite concerned about the method of trash collection
in condominium developments where perimeter drives were not provided as
proposed on this development, however, the petitioners had ir,~iicated they
intended to locate trash bins inside the structure wall nearest the street,
which the Public Works Department found to be acceptable, provided that
the approved CC&RS contained the requirement that the Homeowners Association
would be responsibile for moving the trash containers in and out of the
trash enclosure on pickup day.
Mr. McDAniel concluded his remarks by stating that if the Planning Commission
determined that the R-2 Zoninq was appropriate, they might wish to discuss
providing a 20-foot landscaped buffer strip adjacent to the established
R-1 subdivision to the west.
Mr. Dave Langlois, representing the developer, advised the Commission that
since they had cleared up two major concerns of the Commission which were
voiced at the June 14 public hearing, and since he had presented the land
planning project he aould be available to answer questions.
~i='.
.--,~ ~ ,..:,..: -"i~'~'e . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . ; ~. . - . c- -~~~; . .. ~.
. . . ~ M1~ . . . . .
~ - ~ . ..~ . . . ~ . . ~ _ . ~ _
~
~
_ ~ _ . ~.___ _ ~
i ~' '~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 12, 1g71
M~
. :+,.
' ~ ~:,a.; ,
~
~
; _ ~ ~~
,
71-A52
' RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Rowland noted that the ~ieveloper at ane
; N0. 70-71-55 time proposed alternate
'- inquired how this was resolvedfor tra~h pickup and
VARIANCE NO. 2268
~ Ms. I,anglois stated that they had spent an afternoon
TENTATIVE MAP OF with the Sanitation Division, at which time it was
~ TRACT NO. 7416
determined that the roll out of trash cans by the trash
i REVISION NO. 1 pickup men would have involved a charge over snd above
it to be the responsibilitymof thekhomeowners groupeas~setbforth in requiring
CC6RS to roll out the trash, and it a ear the
to the Sanitation Division to do the lat ed that it would be more satisfactory .
ter.
Commissioner Seymour complimented the developer and architect for revising
the plans to meet the requirements of the Commission, however, l:e would
like to discuss the proposed duplexes adjacent to the R-1 homes, and the
suggestion by Staff reqarding the 20-foot landscaped buffer strip, since
the Planning Commission during the past six to 12 months had required developers
to provide their own buffer when multiple family 3evelopment was propo~.ed
adjacent to existinq R-1 homes by either developing R-2-5000 single f.amily
homes or by providing a 20-foot green ~elt, and then inquired whether it
was possible to consider either alternatives on the west property line. f
Mr. Langlois noted that they planned the duplexes with the required 20-foot !
rear yard and the owners could provide some kind of landscaping in this {
setback, which should meet the intent of the Commission; and that the appear-
ance of the duplexes would be similar to a single f,amily home. S
Commissioner Seymour noted that the 20-foot rear yard would not meet the j
intent of the Commission, since there was a difference between duplexes ~
and R-2-5000 homes.
;
1
Mr. Langlois then stated that they could submit plans to the Commission ;
for review when their thinking had been formulated on development of that
portion. (
i
~
No one else appeared in opposition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-134 and moved for its passage
and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassifica-
tion No. 70-71-55 be approved subject to conditions and the stipulation
by the petitioner that development plans for the duplex portion proposed
on the westerly portion of the proF~erty would be submitted to the Planning
Ccmmission for review prior to con~tideration by the City Council.(See Resolution
Book)
Prior to roll call, Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts inquired of the Commission
if they intended to include a condition in the appzoval regarding a lands~cape
buffer strip to properly shield the existing,R-1 homes to the west, and
if so, this should be made a part of the reclassification, since the petitioner
could develop within the confines of the R-2 Zone without consideration
of the variance petition.
Commissioner Seymau~ L'nen amended his motion to include that either a tier
of single family homes be provided along the westerlp boundary of subject
property adjacent to the existing R-1 homes or in lieu thereof, a 20-foot
heavily landscaped strip of land ~to act as a buf:er between the single family
home~: and the duplexes proposed, this 20 fee~: to be in addition to the reguired
20-foot rear yard.(See Resolution Book)
On zoll call the foregoing resolution wa.s passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONEP.S: Faran.o, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; Allred, Herbst.
-- ~~r.~: ` __ ° . , ,
1
! n
~
,
~ ~ t~
~,. .
;
:~ ^ .
R
.Ne
; MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO[+iMISSION, July 12, 1971 71-453
i
RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-135,
i No. 70-71-55 and moved for its passage and adoption to
qrant P~titi~n
j for Variance No. 2268, subject to conditions.(See
VARIANCE N0. 2268 Resolution Book)
I
~ TENTATiVE MAP OF On r~21 call the foreqoing resolution was passed by
~ TRACT NO. 7416 the following vote:
~ REVISION IZO. L
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood,
Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMZSSZONERS: Allred, Herbst.
Commissioner Seymour offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rowland,
and MOTION CARRIED, to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7416, Revision
' No. 1, subject to the following conditions:
(1) That approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7416 is granted subject
to the approval of Reclassification No. 70-71-55 and Variance No. 2268.
(2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdieision,
each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
(3) That all lots within this tract shall be served by undergound utilities. ~
i
(4) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and !
approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of
the Orange County Recorder.
i (5) That the covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be submitted
~ to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council
i approval of the final tract map, and, further, that the approved cov-
~ enants, conditions, and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently
` with the final tract map. Includ•ed in the CC&Rs shall be the provision ~
i that the community association and/or the individual owners shall have `
! the responsibility to have the trash containers placed at the curb of !
the public streets for pick-up. ~
i ~
(6) rhat street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to ~
appreva7, of a final tract map.
(7) That tbe vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings
to Orangethorpe Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
(8) That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim ~
the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be
appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the
building permit is issued.
(9) That drainage of Tract No. 7416 shall be disposed of in a manner satisfac-
tory to the City Engineer.
(10) That a perpetual maintenance aqreement be submitted to and approved by
the City Attorney's Office for the maintenance of inedian islands located
at street intersectiona with Orangethorpe Avenue, as per City Council
Policy No. 532,
(11) That a modifipd'cul-de-sac shall be provided at the terminus of Sonata
Lane subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
(12) That an arna be eatablished in the vicinity of the community recrea-
tion area to be used for the storaqe and disposal of refuse from the
commonly c:Jn~d areas.
~
i.
~
_ i~~ ~~ ~`- '„'- ' ~
L~' _. r ~,~.~ ~c ~4'-.',u:. - ..r. . , . ~ ~
G
~..;y~~.,,'r ', ~
/
; _ _ _ 1.
~ ;~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 12, 1g71
4,~
71-454
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ROBERT H. GRANT CORP.,
NO. 70-71-64 1665 South Hrookhurst Street, Ar.~neim, California, Owner;
property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of
CONDITIONAL USE con'sist3ng of approximately 15.2 acres, having a frontaae
PERMIT NO. 1247 of approximately 1,526 feet on the north side of Walnut
TENTATIVE MAP OF 600Yfeet~aandhbeing locate~ud depth of approximately
TRACT NO. 7444 southeast of Santa Ana CanyonpRoad1~aprpyert000 feet
classified County A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTntly
`~ REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PC, PLANNED COMMUNITY, 20NE.
~: REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A PLANNED R
ESIDENTIAL
~ COMMUNITY.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: ROBERT H. GRANT
CORPORATION, 1665 South Brookhurst Street, Anatieim, Californ-
ia. ENGINEER: VTN ENGINEERING, 2301 Campus Drive, Irvine,
_^ California - Subdivision into 25 Single Family Zoned
Lots and 51 Condominium Lots.
Subject petitions and tract were continued from the meeting of June 28, ;
1971 to allow time for the Engineering Division to prepare a study on resolving ~
problems pertaininq to Walnut Canyon Road, and for the developer to present
revised plans. ;
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject
property, existing zoning, and the proposal, noting that General Plan
.~ Amendment No. 123 was the Master Plan of Development for a total of 4200
~i acres, of which subject property was a small part; that sub'ect 7
~snd tract were continued from the meeting of June 28, 1971 so thatttheons ~
;i tioner could reBOlve with staff some of the difficulties in his development
:f proposal, and so that the Engineering Division could ~d
the elevation and alignment of Walnut Canyon Road; howeverreno revisedeplansng n
~ had been submitted, therefore staffs comments on the previous Report to ;
-`j the Commission would still apply; and that a co
~-" h3d been submitted to the Commission for their perusalhe Furthermore,StheY ~
applicant had indic,ated to staff that he might wish to continue this proposal !
' to allow time for the preparation of revised plans, however, he would make
`i'i tk~is request at the meeting. '
, ,; Mr. William Stark, representinq the Grant Corp., 1665 South Brookhurst Street,
',:~ appeared before the Commission and requested a continuance to the meeting
of September 8, 1971 for the submission of revised plans, however, he did
, want to appear before the Commission, since his company wished to dispel
any apprehension that the Commission might have insofar as their development
of a very significant development, and because of their intent to request
a continuance, Mr. Vasquez was not representing their company this date,
since he was out of th~ state; that the ranch ~was being developed as a planned
community; that they were attempting to, and would continue to enhance the
existing environment with considerable open space as previously stated,
. and with a diversity of types of residential units and density development
methods; that the City and his compaay were still new to the Planned Com-
munity concept adopted recently, therefore, there would be some aspects
?I to work out; that they still felt that in the planned community concept
varianaes, accommodations, topography, etc., which that tool permitted them
~ to use, and the City to pursue - apparently that would take more time for
;. them to resolve with• the Planning staff; that the ~-acre parcel before
. the Commission today was an isolated parcel because of all the conditions
set forth at great length at the last public hearing; that.b~~ecause of the
unique conditions of that parcel it was an entity unto itseYf and not the
overall proqram; and that they would attempt to bring the onerall program
back to the Commission when they had refined it to a great extent.
`• Mr. Stark further noted that they were doing other planninq of Xnaheim Hills
and Mr. Nelson Frye, their company's marketinq director was psesent, and
if the Commission had a moment, he would like to show the Commission a 400-
acre parcel which they had just finished planning to withir. three weeks
* of filing a tentative tract map - this development would have a density
,~ of about two acres per dwelling unit.
" - £_~:s..::~z.L'=~- ~. .. _. ~
_ _ ' ~ .
~
,
,
,
...
rt - __ __ _.- ' -- -- __ ~.~.....~....
~ ~- ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 12, 1971 71-455
RECLASSIFICATION - Chairman Farano interrupted Mr. Stark by stating that
' NO. 70-71-64 the Commission did not feel it was necessary to say or
.• do anything tn sell the development of Nohl Rranch property
CONDITIONAL USE to the Planning Commission or City Council, since he
PERMIT NO. 1247 felt this had been demonstraced by these Bodies, and
the Commission had further demonstrated what was thought
TENTATIVE MAP OF of as a community attitude and philosophy as far as that
TRACT NO. 7444 development was concerned, so that the Commission did
n~`..+.~-,.i not have to take the position of "pie in tha sky" dream
or think about it; that the Commission would like to
i~.~ ~~ talk with Mr. Stark and spend all kinds of time looking
at proposals, but unless Mr. Stark had something that
~ would be pertinent at this time which could be submitted, *_he CommAssion
would really like to look forward to seeing plans which would be presented
_ on September 8, 1971; however, he did not want to give the impression of
"putting him off", but the Commission was really interested in what would
happen in the hills and what happened in other cities was fin~ fox them,
` but did not do Anaheim any qood.
~ 1 Commissioner Seymour then requested that before Mr. Stark left the podium,
~ he would like to state he was also vitally concerned and appreciative of
~ the different attitude expressed at this hearing than was exprssed at the
~, last public hearinq; and that he for one would be happy to continue with
~ the presentation, since Mr. Stark stated originally it would only take 10
~ minutes.
~; Mr. Stark then stated instead of showing the maps, because of the feelings
; .•~ of the Commission, he would like to state o~},the 400 acres they would be
`.r ',1 moving only slightly more soil than on the 1~ acre parcel, therefore there
:~ would be a diversity of development methods and the Commission would get
' i a chance to see these plans later, tiowever, he wanted the Commission to
` `_i recognize that they were not bound by one specific area and a set of specific
' problems did not indicate what they proposed to do. Therefore, unless other
~~i Commissioners had something~else they would delay any further presentation
,;i until September 8.
i Commissioner Gauer noted that although he was not an engineer, after having
visited the 13-acre parcel and viewing the other property, it would appear
~ on the 13-acres where it was proposed to carve up the hills there was a natural
-,':~ swale of a level plain, and it appeared to him that it could be develop~d
- without a lot of cutting of the hills, however, he did not know hhat the
`~ yield in lots would be, but to cut up the hills as planned, after having
1 visited the area and walking around it would appear there would be a more
. natural way to develop than as proposed by taking the natural ground level
• as it presented itself and then developing around that particular situation.
Mr. Stark noted he appreciated Commissioner Gauer having taken the time
and effort to review the property, however, if there was any flat land there,
then Commissioner Gauer was at the wr~ng spot. -
~ Commissioner Gauer indicated this was a very nice plain; whereupon Mr. Stark
• stated it would make a very nice golf course which the City planned for
that portion, but on the 13-acre site this was all one peak.
' Commissioner Gauer inquired whether Mr. Stark was referring to the right
side of the road, since there was a nice level spot with just a sliqht slope
with beautiful oak trees, but there was an entire area which could be developed.
'? Mr. Stark then state'd they proposed to develop around the area and save
the oak trees, and that was their reason for not trying to cut down the
trees. However, he thouqht the property t'-at was being considered by the
Commission was on the other side of the road.
Commissioner Seymour noted that his understanding of the proposed development
j before the Commission was that it would be a model complex, and he also
understood that in order to develop t"ne property within the perameters out7.ined
at the last public hearinq, perhaps what was laid before the Commission
was within those perameters and was also very logical, but questions which
~`. came to his mind, even though this might be a model complex -(1) wasn't
akc : there a better site for a model complex, thereby providing a,. alternative
to carving the hills up With such a large amount of cut; and i~) if it was
to be a model complex Why couldn't the road be narrow instead of proposing
1~
f
~ ..
_~1_.~
..~ _ ~ ~ .. . . ~~. _~~.__.._..,.
• MINUTES, CIT7 PLANNING COMMISSION, July 12, 1971
71-456
RECLASSIFICATION - a 120-foot wide road with such a wide parkway - it would
__ ,• NO. 70-71-64 appear that both the developer's and the City's objectives
could be accomplished if a new approach were taken as
to the width of the road.
. CONDITIONAL USE
' I PERMIT NO. 1247 Mr. Stark replied that the challenqe and the interest
! of developing hillside land presented a new dimension
TENTATIVE MAP OF with which to work; that if only a flat piece of land
_ i TRACT NO. 7444 were considered it would be relatively easy to pI.an,
:'+~•~" but when one approached the whole other dimension;;(1)
`' .'' because there were very few people capable of doing any
` planning, because of the lack of knowledge and it was very expent;ive; (2)
~ a solution had to be found and then they would have to refine it - but the
.!' suggestion made was a possibilit a
review it; and that he would also wishhtoWexpressshisccomianPlsnaers to
for the City~s planning and engineerin P Y PPreciation
the detail which had been done, since atPleastn~l8lwa~snWeze presentedlas
~~ alternative methods of development, however, they had to select one method
~ .ti and then present it to the City for consideration.
E _
Chairman Farano noted that the Commission had hoped for, after having heard
of the poss~ble continuance, there might be some kind of discussion of phi-
losonhy between the Grant Corp, and the Planning Commission to get a better
feel for the problems and possible solutions - keeping in mind the commit-
ments made to each other earlier in the year - however, he did not intend
to cut off Mr. Stark - this was not his intent, but if there were any
questions or further discussion with the Commission now, or in the future, for
the purpose of talking about attd exchan in
which this development of the Hills shouldgbehdone~ptheaCommissionawouldlbe
`~ more than ha ,
I Ppy to listen and discuas this with Mr. Stark. Therefore was
l Mr. Stark able at this time to discuss anyt changes.or exchange any ideas.
!
..~
:I Mr. Stark stated he appreciated the frankness of the Chairman's remarks,
,, and he would be very happy to review and discuss this in the future with
'! the Commission, however, he did not come prepared to answer an
?'~ y questions.
; Mr. A1 Hyatt, 251 Orange Acres Drive, appeared before the Commission, repre-
~; senting the Peralta Hills Homeowners Association, and 'atated that he had
' missed the last public hearing; that he was not opposed to a continuance,
:'i since he knew there would be many more hom~owners in attenda~ce at the
'~i September 8 meeting; and that he would refrain from presenting any ob,ections
' since Mr. Stark planned to revised the plans, however, if plans as presented
,~~ to the Commission were considered, he would have many objections.
Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continue consideration of Petitions
for Reclassification No. 70-71-64, Conditional Use Permit Ho. 1247, and
Tentative Map of Tract No. 7444 to the meeting of September 8, 1971 to al.low
time for the developers to prepare revised plans. Commissioner Rowland
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~
<.;
VARIANCE NO. 2274 -PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM T. PHILLIPS 6 DARWyN STANLEY,
2~i North Manchester Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners;
requesting Waiver pf PERMITTED USES TO PERMIT A WAREHOUSE
'~ TN THE C-2 ^.ONE on property described as: An irregularly
shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 54 feet on the north-
east side of Manchester Avenue having a maximum degth of approximately 187 feet,
~ and being ;,ocated approximately 500 feet northwest of tY:z• centerline of Li:icoln
,`
Avenue and €urther described as 240 North Manchester Avenue.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon Mc Diniel advised the Planning Commission that
the petitioners had submitted a request for a two weeks' continuance in order
to allow them time to snbmit revised plans eliminating the many discrepencies.
; Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of Variance
No. 2274 to the meeting of July 26, 1971, as requested by the petitioners.
Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED,
. 5
~
.;; ~ ~
~~+s .,
w
f
i
_
. ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 12, 1971
'~.!
71-457
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. VIRGINIA HILTS & CQR1[ ROSS, 2593 Hillside
NO. 71-72-1 Avenue, Norco, California, Owaers; Mr. Norman E. Bri
c/c Wayne Hanson Company, 3460 Wilshire Bculevard, ggs,
Suite 812, Los Anqeles, California, Agent; requesting that
property ciescribed as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the
southeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and Mountain View Avenue, havinq front-
ages ox approximately 131 feet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue and
approximately 286 feet on the east side of Mountain View Avenue from the R-A,
AGRICULTURAL 20NE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE.
Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon Mc Daniel advised the Planning Commission that
since the petition had been submitted to the department a new owner had ac-
quired the property and was desirous o£ submitting revised plans, and was,
therefore, requesting a two-week continuance.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition
for Reclassification No. 71-72-1 to the meeting of July 26, 1971 as requested
by the petitioner. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. JAMES A. & VERp R. AUEST, 1108 North
NO. 71-72-3 Acacia Street, Anaheim, California. Property described
VARIANCE NO. 2276 fronta eeofaagularly shaped parcel of land having a
4 pproximately 62 feet on the east side of
Acacia Street, having a maximum depth af approximately
of the centerline of2La Palma Avenue1nand~furtherPdescribed1as71108eNo=thrth
Acacia Street. PrOperty presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE.
REQUESTED VARIANCF.: WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQpZ~tED FLOOR AREA TO PERMIT
USE OF AN EXISTING GUEST HOUSE AS AN APARTMENT.
Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon Mc Daniel reviewed the location of subject
property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to
establish R-3 zoning on the property, together with a variance requesting
permission to convert an existing two bedroom guest house into a rental
apartment which would be located above a 4-car qarage located on the
rear portion of the lot, said garage serving both the single family residenee
~ and the prcposed apartment; that Code required a minimum of 1225 square
feet for detached units in a multiple family zone, while the proposal
was to utilize an existing 1000-square foot guest house; and that tF,e
Planning Commission would wish to determine whether R-3 zoning would be
appropriate, qiven the fact that the General Plan indicated this area
for low-medium density residential development, although R-3 zoning and
development was established on two sides of subject property, and whether
or not the waiver requested would have any adverse affects on the neighborhood.
Mrs. Vera Auest, one of the petitioners, appeazed before the Commission
and stated she had lived on this property for 25 years; that the home
at the front of the property had a double qaraqe. and a portion of the
rear building was used for storage purposes; that they now planning for
their retireme,it and wanted to n.ave additiona3 income by having a,rental
unit on what was formerly their quest house; that she did not feel this
would have any adverse effects on i.;ae property values of the adjoining
properties; that the request for R-3 zoning was based on the fact that
R-3 zoning and development was already cn two sides of their property with
a school on the nosth side; and that when they had contacted the financial
institu'tions regardinq re£inancing their property, they had been informed
that their property was not be;ng used for its most economical use, there-
fore, the zoning would be necessary in ordez to obtain any refinancinq.
Mrs. Auest in commenting on the reFOmmended conditions of approval, stated
that it was her understar~di~g that a street lightinq assessment had been
made for their property, ;vince development had occurred around their property;
that they had paid for both sidewalks, curbs and gutters, therefore, she
would assume that street lights were also included.
y-~
- c
~ ' _a ,
^
.
_ , ~ ~
- --~.m....w-.~.~..~,e ~ .
`' - -- ~--- - ..
_.
_- -___---~-__ .
~ ~ __ . j~
~ '~
,_ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSI^p, ,7u1X 12, 1971
71-~58
RECLASSTFICATION - Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Planning
NO. 71-72-3 Commission that the
public utilities records did not
indicate these charges had been paid.
VARIANCE NO. 227g
, Mrs. Auest then stated that she couZd not understand
~ how the city would install street liqhts and not
~ assess property owners for their payment.
~ ~ Commissioner Rowland su
proof mi ht 49ested that if Mrs. Auest checked her records this
"`" '~ cate g be found, since it was apparent that City records did not indi-
~ r~, PaYment had been made.
~' Mrs. Auest stated that she was fully aware of the fact that the
;~.. paid for the street trees, although she had offered su es y had not
:e type of trees that should be planted, g4 tions as to the
i
; Chairman Farano then advised Mrs. Auest that although he did not know the
Ci.ty's policy on assessment, if any proof of payment was available he was
sure the City would not again require payment, and suggested that she check
~ her records.
No one appeared in opposition.
~; .
z!. .
,_ .
R'
~ :
THE HEAfiING WAS CLOSED.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that a reclassifi-
cation went with the land, while a variance only permitted the existing
use of the property, and if buildings were destroyed, the variance would
become null and void.
Commissioner Seymour then reiterated that because of the size aad peculiar
shape of the property, it was possible that this property could not be
developed within the confines of the R-3 Zone .Site development standards,
therefore, he would not want the Commission to approve a zone wherein an
automatic hardship was built in, even thouqh he wou].d like to grant the
request of the petitioner.
Discussion was then held by the Commission regarding the requested zoning,
the size and shape of the parcel; that the proposed zoning would make it
very difficult to develop the property without variances; whether or not
waivers requested would give the City better control in the future develop-
ment of the aroperty; and upon its coi3clusien, Commissioner Seymonr
inquired whether or not the variance would be permitted if the reclassifi-
cation were recommended for denial; whereupon staff indicated it would
have to be readvertised because of the existing zoning on the property,
Mrs. Auest advised the Commission that it was necessary to have the R-
3 2oning, since she did not really need the variance now but want to re-
fiaance the property and the lending aaencies would not approve a loan under !
the existing zoning. ,
Commissioner Seymour expressed concern that if R-3 zoning were approved,
if the variance use was no longer exercised, it would be extremely dif-
ficult to develop the property for multiple family use due to the narrow-
ness and depth of the parcel, and then inquired what could be done if the
variance were still on the property, could less than Code requirement be
permitted?
Commissioner Seymour then requested that staff give consideratien to the ~
statements of concern he i~ad expressed if a similar request for rezoning
was presented in the future, since if it was the intent o£ the petitioner ~
to have a specific use approved, then i:he proper vehicle would be avail-
able and proper advertising could be ~?one at that time, since he felt
approvinq this would be opening the door to future detrimental uses
within the City.
Chairman Farano was of the opinion that the R-3 Zone standards offered
sufficient protection to the City, therefore, in this particular instance
a finding could be made as to hardship and any future variance requests
on the property would have to prove hardship as they applied to the R-
3 standards.
~.,- _
_~
, C
.r
' ..~.>
'~:,,_.: .
;s,, ::. . _~
, -
~'
~;
~
; .E
~
~
~
.~c :.
~.
;~
i
. ~ (
I
~ _ __ ... _.. .. . ... ~e7 ~
MINUTES, CITY' PLANNING COMMISSION, July 12, 1971 71-459
RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Seymour was still of the opinion that the
NO. 71-72-3 City was creating the hardship by considering approval
of the R-3 Zone for this parcel which would be very
VARIANCE NO. 2276 difficult to develop without waivers.
Commissioner Gauer of~ered Resolution No. PC71-136 and moved .FOr its
passage and adoption to recommend to the Czty Council that Petitioa for ~
Reclassification No. 71-72-3 be approved subject to conditions. '
(See Resolution Book)
On xoll call the foregoing Fesolution was passed by the following vote:
(
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. '
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst.
Commissioner `~~ffered Resolution No. PC71-137 and moved for its i
passaqe and adoption to qrant Petition for Variance No. 2276, subject ~
to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ~
i
7
On roll call the foreqoinq resolution was passed by the following vote: ~
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. ~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
i
ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: Allreci, Herbst.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING
NO. 71-72-2 COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, to consider the ~
reclassification of property described as: A rectangu- ~
larly shaped area of land consisting of seven (7) par- ~'
cels comprising approximately 13.6 acres, having a frontage of approximately ~
996 feet on the sout2~ side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of ~
approximately 595 feet, and being located approximately 330 feet west of '
the centerline of Brookhurstfrom County of Orange 100-C1-10,000 for Parcels
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7; and R2-15000 MULTIPLE FAMILY DSSTRICT to the City
of Anaheim R-A, AGRICULTURP_L ZONE.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon Mc Daniel reviawed the location of the
property, approximate size, existinq County zoning, and then noted that
the R-A Zoning would establish City of Anaheim zoninq on the properties
at such time as the property was annexed into the City of Anaheim.
Mrs. Ruth Tay, co-orcner of a portion of the property under consideration,
appeared before the Commission and noted that her property had County C1
2oning and she did not want R-3 zoning for her property.
2oning Supervisor Charle_ Roberts advised Mrs. Tay and tt;e Commission that
the opposition presented was on the following reclassi£ication petition,
however subject petition would only establish a City zone on the property
and the subseQuent reclassification would establish a resolution of intent
to C-1 for the property which Mrs. Tay expressed concern. Therefore, this
would establish the most comparable City zone on the propexty, but since
some of the properties did not meet all the requirements of the City of
Anaheim pertainin.q to street dedication, improvement, etc., an ordinance ~
would not be read until these conditions had been met; and that the only
parcel which would be considered for R-3 would be Parcel No. 4.
Staff then reviewed the parcels to v:hich the legal notice referred with
Mrs. Tay and noted the parcel which was proposed for R-3 was that on which
there already exist~d a large apartment complex. Flhereupon, Mrs. Tay ~
stated that everythinq had been cleared up and she withdrew her opposition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-138 and moved for its
passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition £or
Reclassification No. 71-72-2 be approved subject to completion of annexa-
tion to the City of Anaheim (See Resolution Book) '
;~ .
C
_s~
~:,-: '
~
;~
~ (
i ~
,
~ __ -----_.
. _. __ -
--
~
i~
' MINUTES, CITY PLANNI136 COMMISSION, July 12, 1971
• 71-460
~ RECLASSIFICATION - On rcll call the foregoing resolution was passed by ~;-
NO. 71-72-2 the following vote:
~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; Allred, Herbst.
: : .- ,. .:..,
1
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBS,IC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING
NO. 71-72-4 COMMISSION, 204 E3~t Lincoln Avenue, to consider the ~
reclsc;fication oE property described as: A rectangu- ~
larly shaped area of land consisting of seven (7)
parcels comprising approximately 13.6 acres, having
a frontage of approximately 996 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue,
having a maximum depth of approximately 595 feet, an& being located approx#- '
mately 330 feet west of the centerline of Brookhurst from County of Clrange !
100-C-1-10,000 Commercial District to City of Anaheim C-1, GENERAL COM-
MERCIAL, 20NE for Parcel Nos. l, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7; and County R2-1500 ~
Multiple Family District to City of Anaheim R-3, MULTTPLE FAMILY RESIDENT- '
IAL ZONE for Parcel No. 4. ;
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon Mc Daniel notPd that subject petition
would establish a resolution of intent for the most comparable zone
within the City of Anaheim on pzoperty previously recommended for City
of Anaheim R-A 2oning; that since Parce2 Nos, 3 and ti1 had developed in
accordance with appropriate City of Anaheim street improvements, these
parcels could have an ordinance introduced immediately following the
adoption of the resolution of intent to establish C-1 Zoning on Parcel
No. 3, and R-3 2oning on Parcel No. 4. However, the balance of the
parcels would have to mee~ the conditions of approval before the City
of Anaheim zoning would become effective.
No one appeared in opposition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC71-139 and moved for its
passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for
Reclassi£ication No. 71-72-4 be appro~ed subject to conditions which were
applicable to Parcel Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7.(See Resolution Book)
On roll call t11e foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst. ~
GENERAL PLAN - PUB?.IC HEARING. ZNITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING
AMENDMENT NO. 124 COMMISSION, 2tl4 East Lincoln Avenue, to consider an
amendmeat to the Cizcu].ation Element - liiqhway Riqhts-
~f-Way by chanqing the classification of Imperial
Highway from the narth city limits to Santa Ana Canyon Road from a Secondary
to a Major Highway, and from Santa Ana Canyon Road to the south city limits
from a Hillside 3econdary to a Hil,lside Primary Highway.
Assistant.2oning Supervisor pon Mc Daniel reviewed the proposal to reclass-
ify that portion of Imperial Highway from the north City limits to Santa
Ana Canyon Road fzom a Secondary Highway status to a Major Highway, and
southerly fro~e Santa Ana Canyon Road from a Hillside Secondary to a
Hillside Primary; that the Circulation Element of the General Plan pre-
sently designates Imperial Highway as a Secondary Highway from the north-
erly to the southerly City limits; that the County of Orange Master Plan
of Highways desiqnates Imperial Highway from Santa Ana Canyon Road northerly
as a primary, and southerly from Santa Ana Canyon Road as a secondary;
however, the Traffic Section of the Orange County Road Department had re-
viewed the proposal and concurred with Anaheim's proposal to upgrade
Imperial Highway; and that the Cities oE Orange and Villa Park concurred
in the proposed deaiqnation.
;
L;; _
~
I _!
'i ~
~...~.R _..__. .._ . ....._. ~ . ...._-~----..._ _ .___..-- ,.
\
~ _ _-- -----_. _ . _ __. ,~ ~:~ '~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 3uly 12, 1971 71-451
GENERAL PLAN - Mr. Mc Daniel then reviewed the anticipaLed traffic
AMENDMENT NO. 124 volumes submitted by the Traffic Enginner which re-
affirmed the proposed street classifications.
~ Mr. Ray Spehar, 913 Palama Place, Fullerton, inquire how this proposed ~
General Plan Amendment wonld affect his property within the confines of
the SC Zone, and would the setbacks be affected as well as the landscaping.
Mr. Mc Daniel replied that it would have no effect on the requirements
~~ of the SC 2one; that the standards of ±he SC Zone were based on the right- ~
~z~''•-~` of-way and this change would not alter the setbacks on the Spehar property. ~
~
• Mr. Spehar then noted he was concerned about the controlled access at La ;
` Palma Avenue, whereupon Mr. Mc Daniel stated that this was still a St~te
controlled access.
i
Assistant Development Services Director Ron Thompson noted that since the (
State still held control of the access on Imperial, there was nothinq the
_~ City of Anaheim could do about it.
Chaizman Fazano then inquired whether or not there were any plans to con- ~
i
tinue Imperial Highway southerly of Santa Ana Canyon Road; whereupon, Mr.
I Mc Daniel stated that it was proposed to extend the stree~ southerly in ~
the future to Loma Street in Villa Park; and that the other jurisdictions
indicated they concurred with the proposal of the City of Anaheim as it
pertained to their jurisdictions. ~
•?~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~
- . ,a ~
j Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-140 and moved for its
~ passage and adoption to recommerid ta the City Council that General Plan
' Amendment No. 124 be approved amending the classification of Imperial ~
~,~ Highway from the northerly City limits to Santa Ana Canyon Road to a Major
' Highway, and sautherly of Santa Ana Canyon Road to the southerly City limits
:! to a Hillside Primary Highway.(See Resolution Book)
~
`'1 On roZl call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano Gauer, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst.
- ~
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
STREET NAME - PIIBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING
CHA.NGE COMMISSION, 204 F.ast Lincoln Avenue, to consider a
street name change for Walnut Canyon Road to Anaheim
Hills Parkway.
...:.
' Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon Mc Daniel reviewed the proposal to change
~ the name of Walnut Canyon Road to Anaheim Hills Parkway extending southerly
from Santa Ana Canyon Road to the proposed extension of Nohl Ranch Road
where the road would "T" into said extension; that the Anaheim Hills Corp.
indicated this would be their main entrance to the proposed 4200-acre
project known as Anaheim Hills; that the developers propose to provide
a meandering roadway with a very wide landscaped median between two traffic .
~: lanes; and that in studyinq this proposal, staff determined that this would
appear to be reasonable,.since it would affect no other property owners
at this time and would more adequately facilitate the present and future
development of the 4200-acre Anaheim Hills project.
~ No one appeared in opposition. ,
~
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~
.~e ;
L "~
- ac.i~..;._~i.:- " ` ~
, ~
f
_- _ __J_....
~. ._ ___.._._____ .__------.. ~ ~
{
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 12, 1971 71-462
STREET NAME CHANGE - Commissioner Kaywood inquired ahether or not the street
where it "T'd" into Noh1 Ranch Road would continue ~o
be known as Walnut Canyon Road, or would it then be
known as Nohl Ranch Road, whereupon Mr. DIC ~aniel stated it would be known
as Nohl Ranch Road when said road was extended, but for the present it would
remain Walnut Canyon Road.
Chairman Fa.rano stated he did not feel that the sfreet name should be carried
all the way thru the dgvelopment, whereupon, Assistant Development Services
Director Ron Thompson advised the Commission that the practice had been that
where a street was within a reasonable distance from another street after
the precise alignments were determined, the same street name could continue;
however, because there were no residents affected by the proposed change,
the name need not be extended.
Commissioner Kaywood o:fered Resolution No. PC71-141, and moved for its
' passage and adoption ~o recommend to the City Council that a street name
G change be adopted for Walnut Canyon Road to be renamed Anahei~ Hills Parkway
~' from Santa Ana Canyon Road southerly to the area where it would "T" into
the extension of Nohl Ranch Road. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foreqoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Alired, Herbst.
REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1 ' '
RECOMMENDATIONS Reclassification No. 70-71-58 and Variance No. 2267
Request for clarification of intent in Resolution
No. PC71-119 i
i
2oning supervisor Charles/~yev ewed for the Commissien the report by staff ~
regarding the proposal to establish a trailer sales lot with outdoor ser-
vicinq, and an office proposed in a mobilehome, toqether with stafE's '
understanding of the intent of the Commission in granting the outdoor sales- ~
se=vice-mobilehome office as set forth in the Report to the Commission, together!
with the request of the petitioners' aqent indicating their understanding of
the Commission's intent at the public hearing, and requested that the Commission
clarify their intent since staff had interpreted it in Resolution No. PC71-119.
Commissioner Kaywood stated it was her understandinq that the outdoor servicing
and mobile home office use were for a period of one year.
Commissioner Rowland concurred, and further elaborated by stating the objec-
tive of the Commission was to permit using a mobilehome with the understanding
that sometime in the futuze the Commission would review said use as well as the
effects of the outdoor servicing; and that any sanitary facilities proposed
should be oE a temporary e~r interim basis.
Chairman Farano noted that it would be necessary to have sanitary facilities
for the employees as well as potential customers, and although this was not
brought aut in the public hearing, it could be assumed that sanitary facilities
would be provided; however, the limitation of two sewer hookups pertained to
the testing facilities for the outdoor servicing and was not intended to limit
a sanitary facility fiookup.
Mrs. Ann Madison, aqent for the petitioners, noted for the Commission that in
addition to the sanitary sewer hookup facility, there were two hookups for
testing purpases of the trailers being sold and these would have to be of
standard size in order that the existing hookup facility on the trailers would
fit. Therefore, the condition that the facility be of less than standard size
would be rather diffi~cult for the p^~?tioner since he would not be able to
test these new trailers.
'_„.-.
. . r-- r' ~'-,.'~p- :~ ...;~ ~` ~ - ~ r ~ . .. .
' , ~
::, ;
' ~ ~
.:. - ._. '
• K.~,.'
>` ~~~ ~~,
~~.
,.
1
*
~ .
,-
~
,
~
~ ___ --.
~ ~ ;
. ~
~s
~
__-- _ - `~
a
~ ~~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 12, i971
71-463
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1(cont'd)
RECOMMENDATIONS Commissioner Rowland stated that within the framework of M
the resolution the petitioner could have his testing sewer ~
hookup, and that this could be of less than standard size -
it was just a matter of telling the plumber what was required
therefore, the condition as set forth could be met -~ such as
a 4" trap with a 3" line which would be adequate for testinq.
Mr. C. L. Randolph, the proposed operator, advised the Commission that he had
agreed to t'he two test hookups, but he felt he needed regular sewer traps for ~
testinq purposes. Furthermoze, he hoped to make the mobile home so attractive
as an of~ice, that the Commission would grant an extension of time for f~irther
use as an office rather than requiring a permanent office buildinq to be
constructed.
Mr. Roberts noted tha an amended resolution would be necessary which would
clarify the use of the mobile home for an office for one year and which would
be permitted to have temporary sanitary facilities; that the outdooz servicing `.
bays would be granted for one year, however, the use - namely, outdoor sales,
would be considered appropriate. Therefore Condition Nos. 4 and 5 of the ?
previous resolution would have to be amended.
Mrs. Madison noted that Finding No. 4 should also be amended ao that the sales '~
opezation could be considered a permanent use. ~
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-142, and moved for its passage
and adoption to amend Resolution No. PC71-119, Finding No. 4, wherein the
outdoor servicing and use of the mobile home should be granted for one year, ~
and that the use requested of outdoor sales be considered appropriate; and that ~
Condition No. 4 be amended to includ'e sanitary facilities on a temporary basis
in the mobile home office. Furthermore, that Condition No. 5 be amended to
permit outdoor sales as a permitted use, but limiting the outdoor servicing and ~
mobile home office use for a period of one year.(See Resolution Book) ~
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: '
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ASSENT; COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Seymour.
- ITEM NO. 2
City of Placentia Zoning Chanqe 71/08
2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts presented the legal notice from the City of !
PYacentia proposing to have an area adjacent to the City of Anaheim in the !
vxcinity of Melrose and Orangethorpe Avenues reclassified from PM Industrial ~
Parks to R-3, Multiple Family Residential with an overlay of "T" for mobile
home parks; and that the use would appear not to be detrimental since it would ~
be located immediately adjacent to R-3 uses in the City of Anaheim.
Commissionez Rowland offered a motion to receive and file City of Placer.tia
Zoning Change 71/OS. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
TEMEORARY - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Rowland
ADJOURNMENT offered a motion to adjourn the meeting to 10:00 a.m. July 26,
1971 with new petitions to be considered at this time as well
as at the regularly scheduled 2:00 p.m. reconvening. Commission-
er Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
Respectfully sub it d,
~~
Secretary, Anaheim City Planning Commission
~~'. ;
. ~
,
~ {
~ - ,
1
~
ti : ~ r
~ 1 .1. . .~ __ ... .
~E.v ~ .. ; ~ .l 4 ,'~~~.C ~ f':- `
'~ ~ }~e..~ t ~ . ~ ~. K.
~!~ !.4 ~ti lt . Yl ~} t ~ ~ f J
a ,
£' 4 e
~ ~+~i -
.~k-
l ;
,
~,
~
~
S ~
P
f
'
. ~
'l~v~.1
7
~
~
~
~ .
:
.
ti.
'~
Y'
4
~L
~ ~ '>-~ .
f . 4 R''
~ 1
A'. ~ - T
2
{
k ;~~,,
t
~k~
~z ~ r ~ „
~
~ , .
~
~~~ ~~ ,
,~ ,~n
y
~i+
~~
it ~
~~
~
o-,*~ . ~
' ~
~~~ '
> 4
,
`
.
.
5
(
~'
~
t 25
( ~
'
~ ~ ~ 1
r
r t+ l
~`
~
i
Y~' ~,4 ~" 9
.y>. M y a k i r' Il 5 ">
J'
'
' :"l .
fs cf
~~
) v~k 1 G~!~ .. s
.~
5
lt
,~
~~} '. ~;.
~'
`
"1C
4
~ .
s~ .. .
~:.(
1
4 a
{~ C
~ F
i i~ ~ ti.
'
., ~.(
.
4
r
~`
~ Y i t
\.r
r ~'S ~ '•) - kr
rV
_ ~
f
~
.~fe i ~ ~L ~. . +1 j' .
~
~
4 ~ ~. 1
~
~ k:. t _
`~ k{
R K.~~~
~: .; !
~
.
My.
.
~ , l. ~l ~~ g :u '
i
, ~ 1' >t`
~
l~fi 1
~Sl~~
a,~rA~'U~_w .wnti ~ t
{•+
5~ ~-~. J ~"' '( r~ ` ~
~x~i~~~ i ~l-, r
5
'~
~ t
rfy ^
il F
1
"i,+i r~ ~r
'
~~~
-
Y
~
,
.
,
:z ~r
~~' r} w~, ~ ~ ~ -
{4 Kyl .. , 1 1
f -
~ .
4
~
L ,C
N' /
l T
,
i~ F'~ i 1,. t~: ~
,t~ . C~~ F y.,.F, -
t.
/
~ .i 1
3~
~ 1