Loading...
Minutes-PC 1971/09/20PRESENT _ ~i ~_ ._ ` ~ ~ ~ ' i~ ,.. -?,s,~ . >,' ~ ~r, City Hall ~, Anaheim, Californ~a September 20, 1971. , ... A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Farano at 2:00 P.M., a quorum being present. - CHAIRMAN: Farano. - COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst. Kavwood. RowlanA_ co...~r.~,r ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~` PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson ~ 2oning Supervisor: Charles Roberts ~: Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry - Office Engineer: ° Jay Titus 1~ssistant 2oning Supervisor: Don McDaniel -' Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs i:? : _ _ `` PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Kaywood led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the ~' P..LLEGIANCE Flag. ~5 `~ APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to approve the minutes >~ THE MINUTES of the August 23, 1971 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, and MOT20N CARRIED, subject to the following ccrrections: ~' Pg, 71~554, para. 4, line 16: miniature golf course (strike "1lttle park") ':,;:~4 Pg. 71-555, para. 1, line 4: (strike OP) to C-1. ~~ ~y Pg, 71~559, para. 9, line 4: add: billiards "with 17 bar 5~;~~ ~i~ stools" ; add: and use ultrasonic. :~'t:•;;.; ,", <, ;as:.;•,;s~ Pg. 71-561, para. 7, line 4: Commissioner Allred seconded ' ~~~ the motion (not Kaywood). r;~ r,~~ Pg. 71-563, insert para. 9: "Commissioner Kaywood asked the };. `:3~ applicant whether he wa's presently resid- ;;;r~ ~.ng in subject property, a former model of i<; ,,';?'~i the Cinderella Homes. Mr. Asawa stated ~ that he had never lived in this house and r~~~;.~~ oPfered to prove it, contrary to his ;, ' -°• ozigina~. statements at the time he was ":~ granted xezoning on the Beach Boulevard ~ pxoperty to the north fXOm R-A to C-l, ~ that he did own and reside in the house '-" at 2973 West Rome Avenue. ~ AR£A pEyELOPMENT - CONTZNUED PUB7,IC H~ARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY w:~ PLAN NO. 107 PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln 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. Yi ~,.r.'~.: '_~~; ~ Subject area development plan was continued from the May 17, June 14, and '' ,'~ August 9, 1971, meetings to allow time for the ro ert owners in the stud ~, P P Y Y ~~;', ~ area to submit development plans. .~:; . r;` ~* RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ATLANTIC MOTORS, INC., H. R. %:~''"~,;: NO. 70-71-43 MaNeil, 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 prope~,rty described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel ~` of land consisting of approx'imately 3.4 acres, having a frontage of approxi- , mately 90 feet on the south side of Broadway, having a maximum depth of r approximately 644 feet, and being located approximately 991 feet east of the ~' centerline of Loara Street, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE ~1 to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. : : %.i~! ''k 71-598 'i ~ ,~ ; : .. , . ._. :_., . , _ .. ~,. . ,.. . - ~ : ;.,~e ~: . ~ ~ ; _ _ ' ` _a i ~ s , 1 ~' .. . - . . i .. ~ ` . . . . .- ~ ~ ,~ ~~ `. ~ s'~ (~ ,~- MINUTES, CZTY ~LANN~NG COMM~SS~ON, September 20, 1971 7~,~599 AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 107 AND RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70-71-43 (Continued) ,', : Subject petition was continued from the meetings of April 19, May 17, June 14, :,~ and August 9, 1971, to a12ow time for the preparation of an area development ~;t plan that would provide circulation for those properties located south of Broadway between Loara Street and the railraod tracks and for development plans to be submitted. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of the property, ' uses established in close proximity, reason for continuance, and the request •-=~ by the developer of property under Reclassification No. 70-71-43 for an addi- ~~""`°" ~- tional four-week continuance because plans for development of the property ,e :~.,- --.::~'~' within the study area and located west of his property were not yet completed but that they would be filing a reclassification petition on September 22, `. 1971; and that because both Area Development Plan iQo„ 107 and Reclassification ;~- Nu. 70-71-43 were rElated as to traffic circulation, staff would recommend '= that the request for a continvance be granted. s.;- y` Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, and ; MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Area Development Plan No. 107 and ~; Petition for Reclassification No..70-71-43 to the meeting of October 18, 1971, - in order that property within the study area might be advertised for reclassi- fication. i: ~ , ;r'::;3! RECLASSIFICATION - PVBLIC HEARING. LOIS DEE COOK AND KOXIE L. STEARNS, c/o t NO. 71-72-12 Coldwell, Banker (~erry Reynold), 2333 North Broadway, ~ Santa Ana, California, Owner; STANLEY BELL, 9776 Katella ~ VARTANCE NO. 2288 Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described '`zi as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consistinq of s approx~mately 2 acres, having a frontage of approximately , 270 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, having .s maximum depth of h,._.:_,:;~ approximately 316 feet, and being lucated aoproximately 846 feet east of i:hE; centerline of Magnplia Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULT~JRAL, ZONE. ;~ REQUESTED CLASSI~'ICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. ~ L`. REQUESTED VARIANCE; WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-A ~ ~ ^ ~ ri::;:~~:; AND (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS TO PERMIT "t~ CONSTRUCTION OF A 56-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. :; 3 ; Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of August 23, 1971, to allow ;-~L the petitioner time to contact the adjoining property owner to the east to ` ~;;,r consider land assembly. i i ~ Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of the property ~ ;:;~ uses established in , close proximity, reason for continuance, and the request ~ y by the petitioner for an additional four-week continuance to completely revise ;; , the site plan. ~ i .~ ~ I ~ Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue consideration of Reclassifi- ~ ;:>* cation No. 71-72-12 and Variance No. 2288 to the meeting of October 18, 1971 ~ as requested by the , petitioner. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion ' `; MOTION CARRIED, . i ~ ~;~~ r~ { TENTATIVE MAP OF - I DEVELOPER: PONDEROSA HOMES, 4570 Campus Drive, Newport ~ TRACT N0. 7471 Beach, California. ENGINEER: Toups Engineerir.g 17291 ; ' , Trvine Boulevard, Tustin, California. Subject tract, 1 , consisting of approximately 38 acres, is located east of ~ Imperial Highway between the future extension of La Palma ~ ~,:';' Avenue and Esperanza and is proposed for subdivisio., into 206 R~2-5000 zoned lots. ( Subject tract was continued from the meetings of June 28, July 26, and August i 9 and 23, 1971, at the request of the petitioner. ~',,., i h - ' J ;_ , r,~ ~ Q MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 20, 1971 -:~ ~ ~:. ~~ 71-600 ~ - TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO 7471 (Continued) _,...~ Assistant zoning S upervisor Dan McDaniel advised the Commiss±on that a request ~~s . had been submitted from the developer requesting an additional two-week continuance to allow time to redesign the tract, incorporating the proposed alignment of La•Palma Avenue and the park site by the County of Orange. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue consideration of Tentati~e Map of Tract No. 7471 to the meeting of October 4, 1971, as requested by the ~ developer. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. :;.~,z'.;;. `- ~ f CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. GREENLEAF INVESTMENTS, c/o PE:2MiT NO. 1259 F. L. Parker, Adm3nistratar, 1027 West La Palma Avenue, .`,:. Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission for ;, EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontao~ of ' approximately 285 feet on the east side of Euclid Street, having a maximum s depth of approximately 238 feet, and bei.ng located approximately 395 feet :.~ north of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue, and further described as 2050 ' South Euclid Street. Property presently classified C-O, COMMERCIAL-OFFICE, ZONE. ,i,: Subject petition was continued from the meeting of September 8, 1971, to allow time for staff to collect additional information on the parking situation. i^ Assistant Zoniny Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject _ property, uses established in close proximity, and the reason for the con- ti tinuance from the meeting of September 8, noting that a 3aily check had been = made by staff regarding the parking problem which was set forth in the Report ;~ to the Commission; and that this study indicated shortages up to 10 spaces and extra parking available at times. Furthermore, the City Attorney repre- ~ sentative would give the determination of thc City Attorney regarding requiring <~ more parking than Code presently required. -~I Mr. F. L. Parker, representing the petitioner, indicated his presence to ~~~_;~ answer questions . ,,., ~ i~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ::i >~ Commissioner Seymour inquired of Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry whether or A not the City A±torney had determined the legality of a denial on the basis of ;:: ;!; the parking problem. `'~'' ~ Mr. Lowry advised the Commission that the City Attorney had indicated that ` since this was a conditional use permit, conditions could be required on subject petition; however, he would recommend that the ordinance be amended to increase the parking requirements since-tne parking on this plan was in conformance with existing Code requirements. 'r Commissioner Seymour then inquired whether or not the Commission should con- _~ sider or include in their nriority of special studies a parking requirements ~'t of hospitals study to dei.ermine if all had a similar problem. ` ~ Commissioner Gauer ::as of the opinion that the Commission should not consider ~:<` amending the ordinance when situations similar Lo this arose, since a study made by staff indicated of sixteen similar operations, only two were short of the required parking - others were to Code, ~nd a few had in excess of Code ~.`,, .,~ requirements, and the situation at this hospital might be peculiar to their ;; ~ operation, however, he would like to have more information on the other . hospitals approved by conditional use permit regarding their shortage of '~i, `r parking spaces, or whether par;cing as provided was adequate. ~^:' F~, Commissioner Seymottr noted he was concerned that the Commission would approve = an expansion in which a known parking problem existed. .~. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC71-183 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1259, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) , ~ ", !:.~9e . `` -; ~ • + ,, ' ~ € . _ ~ _ _ M. _ _ ~ 5 - d ~ ~.. ' -~ ~ ~ ~ _.:. . .. .,,., ,. ~ ,~ Y ._ ~ . _ , . . . .. . . .. , , . . .. . ..: _ - . . . .... _ _ , i,. . . ~ . .. .. ~ . ~~ ;. . .. .. .~ . ' - ~~ - ~ . . ~ . . . . . . _ . . : , .. .. . . . . .. .., . . . . . . .'. ~ . ~ . ~ . . . ~ . ~ ~ . - . . .. ~ ,+, _ - ~ ~ . . . ~ CJ ' MINUTES, CITY PLAN^?ING COMMISSION, September 20 1971 , 71-601 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1259 (Continued) On roll call the foreqoing resolution was passed by the f ll o owing vote: AYES: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIpNERS Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Ka wood y . Rowland, Seymour ' ABSENT: : COMMISSIONERS: . None. Allred. _ ' ~ SPECIAL STUDY RE UESm - Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to direct staff to make a special study of other hospitals (regular and ~:;!:.;,, convalescent) approved by conditional use permit to determine if ' the parking provided and approved by the Commission was sufficient o h ?~' '~ , r w ether they also had parking problems, prior to a '' ny consideration of amending the ordinance. Commissioner Kaywood s d =~ econ ed the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~:~ y^: ~ *~ ; ..~ :~. 7^~a°~ ` . ,. . - RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. VIRGINIA HILTS AND CORA ROSS, NO. 71-72-1 2593 Hillside Avenue, Norco, California, Owners; MR, NORMAN E. BRIGGS, c/o Wayne Hanson Company, 3460 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 812, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Orangewood and Mountain View Avenues, having frontages of approximately 131 feet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue and approximately 286 feet on the east side of Mountain View Avenue be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE. Subject petition was continued from the meetings of July 12 and 26, 1971, to allow time for the new owner to submit revised development plans, and for a full Commission to be present to consider the request. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, the proposal, and the reason for continuance, and then reviewed the plans as presented, concluding by stating that the primary consideration before the Commission was the appropri- ateness of the land use 1n this area and whether or not a convenience center as proposed was needed in the area. Mr. Lester Elbert, 11881 Monticito, Los Alamitos, the proposed developer and representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the fact that at the last public hearing he had submitted a petition ~ siqned by property owners within 600 feet, indicating approval of the proposed ~ shopping center, and that the only reason action was not taken at the last hearing was because of a tie vote. ' Chairman Farano noted that the vote in connection with the report was incorrect because the light on his voting key was not operating properly, and that a count of four of the Commission membership was needed for passing of a resolu- tion in reclassification petitions. Mr. Elbert then inquired whether or not it was pertinent to indicate there was a need for the proposed facility; whereupon Chairman Farano noted that if the applicant had addit9.ona1 information, this should be presented. Mr. Elbert then noted that he had made a study since the last meeting regard- ing the number and placement of convenience shopping centers in Anaheim, particularly along Orangewood Avenue, said study indicating that there was a convenience market every one-half mile from Beach Boulevard on the west to Harbor Boulevard, and then there wa~ over a mile to the f.reeway in which there was no convenience market along Orangewood Avenue; that a further study had been made which indicated a very high residential density in this particular area between Harbor Boulevard and Mountain View Avenue, which indicated there h*ere over 4,000 people; that most of the residents were in apartment develop- ments~ and h*hen these people needed ti quart of milk or other small items, they wou7.d not have to drive three-quarters of a mile to the Market Basket to the sovth on Chapman and Haster, or to the other one at Katella and Harbor, or the i . ~.~ '~ :-~ ( ~ .rt _.. i ; :'+. . a ._...~ . ~: r i - y: ~ ;~i r:~ .,; ;~1 :~ ~~ti ?~.:. :;,... 3'," ` . _ R;:' >' :~c ~~: i% ~. ` ~ :. f ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 20, 1971 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 71-72-1 (Continued) small convenience shopping center at Katella and Haster. cJ 71-602 Mr. Elbert further noted he had been in this type of business for some time; that he did not sell his convenience markets after he developed them, and he supervised his convenience centPrs so that they would be an asset to the commun:ty while providing a service to apartment residents of this area;.and that tkie plans were changed to provide a 20-foot planting area between the single-family residential use, said area to include shrubbery in addition to trees and a wall - this was done after having contacted the Fire Department and the Planning Department, determining that access would not be necessary from the rear, therefore., the alley was eliminated, and no parking was proposed to the rear o£ the bui2ding. Furthermore, the building would be set back more than the required 2:1 setback from,residential uses; that all the mechanical air conditioning was moved to the front of the building and would be baffled so that no noise could reach the residential uses; and that an engineer advised him the noises from the shopping center would not reach the maximum permitted of 60 decibels, therefore, noises would not reach the residential uses, Mr. Elbert, in response to Commission questioning, noted the hours of operation ~ for most of the stores would be 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., however, the market and the launderette would be open until 11:00 P.M., and that he would sign such a reguirement because he did not allow later hours in any of his other convenience centers. .; Mr. Thomas Voorhis, 323 East Bluebell Place, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that he and his neighbors had a great deal at stake because of the encroachment of commercial uses immediately adjacent to the single-family residential use; that he wou7.3 not argue the point that the development would not meet any of the requirements, however, in Mr. Elbert's statement regarding convenience markets every one-half mile, he did not state all these markets were buffered by apartments or trailer parks, and the market on Chapman Avenue was developed at the same time as the condominiums adjacent to it - therefore, residents of the~e condominiums were fully aware of the market being developed, whereas they had purchased their homes expecting residential uses to be developed on the vacant parcels, not commercial uses; that one of the basic reasons for his having selected this area was his desire to move away from the city to avoid the noises, dirt, and deterioration of property values, and when a residential area had commercial uses established adjacent to it, it quickly deteriorated - one had only to look at the single- family area to the rear of the White Front store where these homE:s were faced with litter thrown by customers of that store after making small purchases, and this was what the residents of his area were afraid of - that litter from this shopping center would be blowing into their residential area; that the neighbor behind him told him he was being transferred to San Antonio, and he had been approached by a developer who wanted to combine three single-family lots into further commercial uses; th,at most of the residents of his area did not feel there was a need for addi*ional convenience markets; that residents of apartments could move if they did not like the appearance or atmosphere of a neigh~orhood, but this was extremely difficult for an owner of a single- family home to do since they would lose considerable in their equity; that he had never seen any of the markets in this general area crowded, which would be an indication that there was no need for another convenience: market; and that it was his opinion this area did not need a market, and ii° approved, it would create a deterioration of the property values, particulax•ly if people decided to leave the area after having lived there for ten yeaYS. Seven persons indicated their presence in opposition. Mrs. Joe Iaquinta, 2123 Vern Street, appeared before the Commission in opposi- tion, stating her property was directly behind the proposed market plaza, being located only 13 feet from her pati,o; and that the convenience center might bring taxes to the city, but as a homeowner, she also paid taxes to the city, and the residents oP this area should be given some consideration or right to have theiz privacy. Commtssloner Seymour noted that the revised plans indicated a 20-foot separa- tion and inquired whether or not Mrs. Iaquinta was aware of that. ,;~ _, , .. - , , i :::.. . , , ~: ^ ,~ ,~., .Y,} ;5•, ~ , ~ ~ - - - . _ . -~_=-- , _} -' ~ -- ---- ~ ~ . .. .. . ; ~ , . . '. I I . . . ~ ~ ~J MSNJTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 20, 1971 71-603 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-1 (COntinued) Mrs. Iaquinta replied that there still would be noise at night from cars coming in and leaving the market and laundry until 11:00 P.M., which would be particularly disturbing to her husband who retired early because he had to arise at 4:00 A.M. to go to work. Commissioner Seymour noted that the petitioner was proposing to have a 20-foot green area between the property line and the building, and if subject property were developed with apartments or duplexes, there would be only a 13-foot difference, and the noise level could then increase with children in the rear yards and residents having patio parties, etc. Therefore, to consider privacy as a main criteria for opposition to this development - it was his opinion that the proposed development then would be better than residences. Mrs. Iaquinta replied that family noises wov,ld not be on a continuing day-to- day basis, such as automobiles driving up aaid leaving with the attendant noises, slamming of doors, and voices, and the intensity of noises could reach a high ratio, particularly when one considered the fact that she could hear her neighbors talking in their homes from rooms in her home. Therefore, one could expect the noises from the center to also be considerable, and that if they wanted to be near a convenience center when they were in the market for a home, they would not kcave moved into this very quiet, residential area - shopping centers created all types of noises, and children, particularly, patronized them. Mr. Elbert, in rebuttal, again reviewed the fact that of the 52 parcels within a 600-foot area of subject property, 45 indicated there was a need for the proposed convenience center; that several did not want to commit themselves, while only three indicated their opposition; that Mr. Voorhis was not immediate- ly adjacent to the property, however, he was worried that th~ balance of Orange- , wood Avenue would develop for commercial uses; that Mrs. Iaquinta did live immediately adjacent to the proposed center, however, they had provided for her protection by relocating the building farther away, eliminating parking adjacent to the wall, and providing a completely landscaped buffer area in the 20-foot setback area ~ therefore, she would not be bothered by noises; that thei.r center at Haster and Lampson Street had only a 10-foot setback, and although resident$ of the area or~.ginally were opposed to the center, they later stated t'r.ere was no noise problem, and that if subject property were developed for apaztments, there would be more problems with that type of ` facility than. the commercial center pzoposed, j Chairman Farano noted that many convenience centers in Anaheim had small ~ restaurants ox take-out food preparation areas developed as well as liquor ' atores thdt aPpe$red to be dnother type of tenant for these centers; and that w~hen restaurants first went in, they would request only on-sale beer and wine and later ind~.cating a need foX on-sale liquor, which would add to the intensity ~ of the uSe of d small center. Dir. Elbert replied that all their markets did have off-sale alcoholic beverages, however, he wouid sign an agreement that there never would be any on-sale liquor in this conver.ience center. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not those persons signing the petitions approving the use were all tenants of the apartments, or would some of the owners reside in these apartment developments. Mr. Elbert replied that same of the owners resided in the apartment develop- ments, although many of those who had siqned were residents. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend app_oval of Petition for Reclassification No, 71-72-1, stating that after looking at the area, a convenisnce market appeared to be needed, and since the city had convenience markets throughout the community for many years, these were considered neigh- borhood grocerg stores, and s~.nce the developer was proposing to provide adequate protection for the s~.ngle-family zesidents, the use would appear to be appropri.ate, ~ ..~«-w , : s-~' . . ' ,0 ` ~ , ; .`, ~~ ; ~ : : f:~~~ :~ .: . ?'' r ` ,~; ~ ~~ ; ,~ : ~../ ~ ~:~ MTNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 20, 1971 71-604 RECLASSIFICATION I~O. 71-72-1 (Continued) On roll call the foregoing resolution motion lost by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Gauer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Commissioner Kaywood noted that this was strictly a residential area; that proof had been submitted there were sufficient convenience markets located in the area; and that according to statements made by the proposed developer that conven~.ence markets were needed in close proximity, one could foresee a con- venience center at every intersection. Chairman Farano noted that another item on the agenda was in close proximity to the single-family residential uses, and a convenience market center was there, however, they appeared to have trouble filling the small sho~ping spaces, and a small restaurant first requested on-sale beer and wine and now was proposing on-sale liquor - therefore, one could foresee a similar request from this property. Commissioner Seymour noted that the layout of the development was of the highest quality, and even though tne develaper was proposing a 20-foot buffer strip adjacent to residential use, to approve subject petition would be creating an intrusian into the residential integrity of the area and would be creating spot znning. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-184 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassifica- tion No. 71-72-1 be disapproved on the basis that the proposed reclassification was not in conformance with the land use designation of the General Plan; that the property was surrounded by low, low-medium, and medium density residential I land uses, ar~d to approve subject petition would be to inject commercial uses f into a primarily residential area and ~vould amount to spot zoning; that approval; of the proposed reclassification could establish a precedent for similar zoning requests for the undeveloped parcels in close proximity; and that there were sufficient convenience shopping centers in close proximity to satisfy the needs f of the residents of this area. (See ResoZution Book) S On roll call the foregoing motion was tied 3-3 with Commissioners Kaywood, ~ Rowland, and seymour voting £or the motion and Commissioners Farano, Gauer, and i Herbst voting against the motion. Cha~rman Farano indicated he had depressed # the wrong button and requested that the voting be held again. ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, rarano, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. f NOES; COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. j Commissioner Herbst left the Council Chamber at 2:4o p,M, CONDITIONAL USE - TIC TOC MARKET, 2588 Newport Boulevard, Costa Mesa, PERMIT NO. 1263 California, Owner; RAYMOND H. DANCY, 530 North East Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requestinq permission to HAVE ON-SALE LIQUOR TN Ah EXISTING RESTAURANT WITH WAIVER OF (1) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SIGNS, (2) MINIASTJM D'[STANCE BBTWEEN FREE-STANDING S=GNS, AND (3) LOCATION OF FREE-STANDiNG SIGNS on property described as: A sectangularly-shaped parcel of land at the northeast corner of East and Sycamore Streets, having approximate frontages of 220 feet on the east side of East Street and 243 feet an the north side nf Sycamore Street, and further described as 530 North East Street: Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the request to permit on- sale liquor in an existing restaurant; and that when the previous on-sale beer and wine conditianal use permit was approved for this restaurant, the Planning Commission imposed the hours of operation from 11:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M., and this was later extended to midnight. Mr. McDaniel then reviewed the sign proposal for a free-standing sign of approximately 24 square feet projecting from the west end of the structure adjacent to the restaurant and noted that in view of the Planning Commission ~ and City Council's previous direction to staff to formulate an abatement ~ program for existing nonconforming signs, the Commission might wish to determine~ whether there was justification for. approving a request that would perpetuate . _ _ - , .... ~ ~ _~ ._ ~ ~' ~ 1 . ~ / ~ I :+ .' f - , ~ ~~ ,,~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ser'~ember 20, 1971 71-605 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1263 (Contin~_ed) a sign situation that did not conform witr the Sign Ordinance; and that if the petitioner utilized a wall sign on this same wall, there would be no need for the requested sign waiver. ~ Mr. Ke:~ Bryant, 2020 North Broadway, attorney representing the petitioner and lessees, appeared before the Commission and noted that the restaurant had been operating for four years and had an additional four years remaining on _ their lease; that this was a successfully-operated, neighborhood restaurant; }-, that in connection with the sign request, this restaurant had no sign exposure to East Street - a street which carried the majority of the traffic - and which ~ had only a blank wall; and that the reason for requesting on-sale liquor was ~.,. because the operators of the restaurant had a number of requests to serve ';~~,~ liquor with the meals. ` `~ Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not the petitioner intended to have a '~. bar; whereupon Mr. Bryant stated they planned a small service bar and eight stools. ~ Commissi.oner Gauer noted that he had occasion to have dinner there, and that ,,, it would appear to him there was insufficient space to establish a separate ~ ~;; bar from the dining room, a requirement of the Planning Commission where liquor ~ ; was proposed to be served to customers other than with their meals. r~ ~= Mr. Bryant then stipulated that the petitioner would eliminate the bar and `i stools but would have only a service bar to serve however, the sign request was still urgently neededuests at their tables; ~ Mr. Dancy, 2627 East La Palma Avenue, agent for the the Commission and stated they had been in operationPfortfourr~ appeared before `' number of people had informed them they were unaware of a restaurant indthis center from both people traveling south on East Street, as well as residents in the neighborhood - therefore, they were requesting a 3-foot sign which ,: would be located at the edge of the building on the west in order to alert ~~ the motorists going south on East Street that a restaurant was located there. ~' ,. ;.,;'~ 4 Commissioner Gauer noted the request appeared to be reasonable since it was ,.,y~~ difficult to see the restaurant. !~ Commissioner Seymour asked whether or not this sign could be attached to the :; existing free-standing sign. ;a Mr. Dancy replied that the Tic Toc Market had taken the entire corner with ,: ,~~ signing, therefore, they had no signing available on the center sign; that ' ~,.; there were two other restaurants in this location previously - a Mexican ~ restaurant and an Italian restaurant - which appeared not to have been success- ~' ful; and that they had lost business to other restaurants because they were '; unable to serve liquor with meals. "?: „ Commissioner Seymour inquired whether a wall sign similar to tnat on the south ~ could be developed along the west side of the buildin ~_;z whereupon Mr. Dancy replied this would be useless, g- would this be helpful; -~; No one appeared in opposition. ' THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~: ,'-5 ; Discussion was held by the Commission regarding hours of operation, it being ,f,{ determined that the Commission could limit the hours of operation of the restaurant, but ABC controlled the hours of operation of the sale of liquor. :' Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-185 and moved for its passage ~ and adoption to grant Conditional Use Permit No. 1263, in part, denying the ,:. request for sign waivers and approving the on-sale liquor request, subject to c; conditions and the stipulation b the bar from which to serve alcoholic beverages1with mealstonlbar would be a service ~ '-? stools would be removed. Furthermore, denial of the sign waiverstwas basedar ' on the fact that the hardship alleged by the oetitioner was a situation self- t imposed by the property owner when he allowed Tic Toc Market to have the only I permitted free-standing sign without considering future signing needs of the other tenants; that the ! i . pole with the existing Tic~Tocesigngand~stillacomplyewith~therSign Ordinanceme ~• a .~+k! 1 ~. ~ - t ~ ; ~, ; ;::: _ - . {.: , . . - - ~..: , ~~ , - _... € .. _. , ... _ , g , . ~} - - - _ : . - ~- -- • - -4-~ -_ -- ---- -- • - -'~- - - ~~_ . ~ti:;~ ,. ,~' ~ ~ ~i -1 ; ..;-~e1 ,.; ';i ~ .sae , . . ' . . / . . ., t r I • . ~ f._~ ~ t ._~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SeptemLer 20, 1971 71-606 CONDITIONAL USE PERMTT NO 1263 (Continued) and that approval of the requested waicers could establish an undesirable precedent for similar requests from each tenant for additional free-standing signs. (see Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES; COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES; COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. JERRY AND NANCY KING, 3602~ Marcus~ PERMIT N0. 1264 Newport Beach, California, Owners; CHARLES r. DOUGLASS, 47 Quail Court, Suite 105, Walnut Creek, California; Agent, requesting permission to HAVE ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT, WITH WAIVER OF (1) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE- STANDING SIGNS, (2) LOCATION OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, AND (3) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.7 acres located south and east of the southeast corner of State College Boulevard and South Street and having approximate frontagPS of 485 feet on State College Boulevard and 150 feet on South Street, and further described as 810 South State College Boulevard. Property presently classified C-1, GENEFAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to permit on- sale beer and wine in a 3500-square foot pizza parlor, with waiver of the sign location which required a minimum of 300 feet between two free-standing signs, and also to be at least 120 feet from the adjoining property line, said sign prc~osed to be 146 feet north of the existing Lucky Market free- standing sign and only 50 feet from the service station property line to the north; and that thz proposed sign would provide space not only for the pro- posed pizza parlor but for anticipated future tenants, as well. Therefure, the Commission would wish to determine whether the use requesced was appropri- ate in this area and whether an hours of operation limitation should be imposed. Mr. Bill Becker, 160 H Street, Tustin, representa,ng the petitiuner and the Straw Hat Pizza Parlor, indicated his presence to answer questions; whereupon the Commission requested that the petitioner explain the reasons for the sign waivers. Mr. Becker then stated that the sign situation was very acute for them because the building was set back off the street and was also obscured by Lucky Market; that the existing free-standing sign was near their own property; that the developer and he had asked Lucky Market to permit them to integrate their sign but were turned down; tiiat there would be no view of the proposed pizza parlor by traffic moving northerly on State College Boulevard until after the vehicles had passed the market and exposure was necessary based on their experience in their 100 restaurants in California, it was necessary, there£o--e, to have some signing since their survival as a business was very nebulous; that he was aware of the Commission's desire to have the sign integrated; that it would be a hardship situation since their survival depended upon having this sign exposure, even though they might have both television and newspaper advertise- ments, if one could not see the sign, it wuuld be very difficult to alert customers of their place; that they proposed to spend $75,000 to $80,000 for the proposed development; that their business was a family-oriented business; that they also were active in neighborhood activities, such as Little League teams; that the signing proposed would be substantially that which could be provided except they were placing it on another pole, and if the existing free-standing sign had been located farther south, then the sign would have been permitted since it would have been 300 feet from the other sign; that the footage for both the proposed and the existing signs would still be within Code limits; and that they determined it would be easier to s.ee their sign if it were lower than the Lucky sign. Mr. Jerry King, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and noted he was also the developer of the shopping center; that they had attempted to follow all of the City's requirements and had even added those not required; ~ :::. +as. . .,.._,_ , . r~ - ` ^0 '°r ' ~ . ~ r ~.z :~ .~5,.~.M f ... . w:.- : ers 'y,: ~. ~ 3l; ; a' .`' '?a iy ;~, ~~ ;,'aI `~ ~~ ;r r;l J:~] J~, t.,,,, : `. ~:,'`.: ,` ~,w . ~.. ; j~. ~~ I }~, .~! ; ~ t,_ , 1 ~~,~~ , r ~ ~~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 20, 1971 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 1264 (COntinued) 71-607 ! that he knew the Commission had warned him~ not to come in for a variance, and he should provide signing in acoordance with Code, however, when they requested the zene, they had Lucky Market ready to develop and they thought that the market would draw additional customers f-or the other tenants so that it would not be necessary to have signing on the free-standing sign. However, pro- spective tenants indicated they could not survive with only the front wall sign, and they needed their free-standing signs for proper street exposure; that when the building permit was requested, they had originally proposed the Lucky sign farther south, but the Lucky tenant stated they could not live with the signing at the proposed location because traffic would be drawn toward the alley; and that when they realized an additional sign would be needed, they had tried to reach an agreement with Lucky to incorporate it all on one pole, but they felt this would make it appear like a jumble of words. Chairman Farano inquired whether or not the property owner had surrendered his rights to control signing on the property; whereupon Mr. King replied "yes and no", but Lucky Market felt that since their sign was only 25 feet high, additional signing would create nothing but words. Commissioner Seymour stated that this was a newly-created shoppinq center, and he could not see how the developer could not have foreseen these problems, even after the Commission warned him. Mr. Kinq noted that in most shopping centers the major tenant would draw business to the smaller shops. Cammissioner Seymour observed that all the newer shopping centers had integrated' signs - this appeared to be the trend. Mr. King noted that sometimes when developing a center, one did not know the I importance of signing, but he was fully aware of that now, and that the major tenant did not always act as an attraction for the other stores, and additional signinc; was now necessary. j J a Commissioner Kaywood noted that when there was such a proliferation of signs, ~ one could not see anything. ~ Mr. King replied that this was the reason they were requesting only one addi- tional sign since they proposed to integrate the other stores into this sign, and that there would be the same number of signs except that they would be on two poles. Furthermore, when driving down Brookhurst Street, one only noted the siqns, not the poles. Commissioner Kaywood then inquired whether or not all the tenants indicated on the proposed siqn had been signed as tenants; whereupon Mz, King replied that only the pizza parlor had signed, and the bank was in the process of signing while others were in the negotiation stage, but all requested free- standing signing, No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARSNG WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour noted that the signing requests and variances were leading the Commission down a path from which they were trying to reverse themselves, particularly since at a Commission work session the Commission had requested staff to present plans for setting an amortization period and abatement for existing, nonconforming signing, and to consider this petition for sign waivers favorably would be unreasonable and illogical. Furthermore, what a shopping center of this type should be taking into consideration was the potential sign- '~ ing requirements rather than giving the first major tenant rights to control ~ suhsequent signing rather than leaving this within the prerogative of the developer. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-186 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1264, in part, denying the sign waiver requests and permitting on-sale beer anci wine only, ~ subject to conditions. The denial was based on the fact that the alleged hardship was a situation self-imposed by the property owner when he allowed the major tenant to have the anly free-standing sign permitted on State College ! •y ~ d , .. _ ~ _ ' ,a 1 r, d 1 i ~- L~ , ~.. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, September 20, 1971 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1264 (Continued) 71-608 Boulevard without considering signing needs for other tenants in the shopping center. Furthermore, the existing free-standing sign size was not to maximum, and signing of the restaurant and other shops could be accomplished on the same pole without creating an additional sign; that approval of the sign :vaiver requests could establish a precedent for similar requests from tenants of other shopping centers, requesting individual free-standing signs; and that the hours of operation would be from 11:00 A.M, to midnight Sundays througY: Thursdays and 11:00 A.M, to 2:00 A.M, on Fridays and Saturdays, with the serving of beer and wine to be incidental to the serving of food, as stipulated by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES; COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst. Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC71-187 and moved for its passage and adoption to terminate all proceedings of Conditional Use Permit No. 1103 on the basis that the use was not being exercised. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, R~~wland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst. Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC71-188 and moved for its passage and adoption to terminate al,l proceedings of Variance tVo. 1695 on the basis that the waiver was not being exercised. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. JOHN M., PAUL F., AND CLYDE B. SCHLUND, NO. 71-72-14 Owners, c/o RICHARD H. PAULEY, LARRY K. SUTTON, AND FRANK L. SCHMEHR, 2323 North Broadway, Suite 450, Santa Ana, California, Aqents; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 19 acres ~~ located at the northeast corne~ of Orangewood .~~venue and West Street, having ;` frontages of approximately 1,320 feet on Orangewood Avenue and approximately =•' 600 feet on West Street be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE to ~~ the C-R, COMMERCTAL-RECREATION, 20NE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the proposal to establish C-R zoning, however, no plans for development of the property had been presented; and that the 1970 General Plan indicated all the property between West Street and Harbor Boulevard on the north side of Orangewood Avenue as beina appropriate for C-R land use, there- ;. fore, it would appear that the request was appropriate. xowever, the petitioner I~`," should be advised that consideration was being given to the possibl~ realignment; ~:;.. ', of Convention Way as it might affect subject property and the possible need for I~F.~ :~r a street extending from Convention Way to Orangewuod Avenue across subject property. Jh. I ~' I `~~ bir. Frank Schmehr, 2323 North Broadway, one of the agents for the petitioners, ~ ~°:.`- appeared before the Commission and stated he was one of three referees appointedi by the Superior Court of Orange County - the other co-referees being present - ` who had been instructed by the court to sell the property in accordance with '~'~ the law determining the Ccmmission action; that the property would ultimately << ~ be divided into smaller parcels since this was an 18.6-acre parcel which was still in orange groves; that in accordance with the General Plan, the highest `~,~ and best use of the property would be for the zone requested on the property; ` al~c ;, ' t ~ : _ . . .. :. - _ti~s:, ° ~. *~ ' ..;_. . . :, ~ ..,. , - ~ . } i ; r , ~. ~ ,,- -_. __ ~ - , ~ ~ ,~ . MINUTES, CxTY PLANNTNG COMMISSION, September 20, 1971 71-609 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-14 (Continued) that they had also requested consideration by the City Council to grant an extension of time for the reclassification of the property to R-3 zoning which was existing since 1960, however, they were not trying to obtain both zonings but were required by Court to sell the property at its highest and best use, and they were fully aware that granting two major zones would be in violation of the 2oning Code, therefore, they felt the C-R Zone would be the better of the two zones proposed for the property; that although the ~ property was presently bei.ng used for growing citrus, it was only a question -''~,:' of time when the farming of the property wcnld not be fezsible; that Quality T' Courts were presently building a large facility which would indicate the C-R ~ zoning was creeping in a southerly direction toward subject property, and in order to determ3ne a use at some time in the future and because the C-R Zone ,,; was in the scope and concept of the General Plan, the requested zoning was - being proposed. Therefore, before thev could fulfill their obligation to the Court, the City of Anaheim zoning determination must be. ascertained. In ' addition, no use was planned at this time, although they were fully aware that plans would have to be approved, and the con3itions recommended to the Commis- ~ sion were similar to those requi•red under che reclassification to R-3'Zone, and they were not in opposition to them. Commissioner Gauer observed that the proposed zoning would be bounded on both the east and west, as well as the south, with R=1 homes; that the R-3 zoninq previously approved would appear more appropriate than C-R zoning; and that ,: to approv~ ~-he requested zoning would be establishing commercial uses between ;;:, two resiu~ntial uses, which could be very objectionable to the residents and the homes, however, when the homes were developed in that area, the residents were then apprised of the fact that R-3 zoning had been approved, but not ~ommercial zoning as presently proposed. Commissioner Seymour noted he found it difficult to believe that the highest _`~ and best use for the property could be two zones - it would have to be either one or the other zone. ~ ~. _~~ Mr. Schmehr advised the Commission that the existing resolution of intent to ,r.-~ R-3 zoning limited the property to the highest and best use of the property; and that when one considered the price of land, particularly in the C-R area, ";~ compared with R-3 prices in the city, there would be a two to four price :~~ differential be~ween the two uses. '.~ Commissioner Gauer stated that the Planning Commission could not enter into ;?:~ an economic par tners h ip to perm it the petitioners to sell their property at .~ a higher price - the Commission had no right to zone property so that the highest and best price could be obtained. No one appeared in opposition. A letter from the City of Garden Grove recommending specific safeguards for the R-1 properties was read to the Commission. 'i Commissioner Gauez was of the opinion that since no plans of davelopment were presented and the propert,y was presently being farmed and was still R-A even after having a resolution o£ intent for R-3 for ten years, the requested ~ zoning was inappropriate. . ;• Commissioner Gauer offered Resolutior. No. PC71-189 ana moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification {;. No. 71-72-14 be disapproved on the basis that subject property was bounded on ,' three sides by siagle-family residential uses, and approval of the requested ,I zoning without specific development plans could present problems in assuring that a proposed C-R use would be compatible w~th the general residential character of the neighborhood; that no evidence was submitted to warrant favorable consideration to approving C-R zoning on the property in such a manner that it would not be detrimental to the i•es~dential integrity of the ; area; and that permitting a commercial encroachm_•nt into this residential area could encourage less desirable, marginal commPrcial uses of the residences, _ thereby deteriorating this attractive resi~?zntial area. (See Resolution Book) ~ _r ~~ ~ r~•-~~ `' :i , ~ '' ' - ~_ ..J:.,.~~ - .... . _ :~.. ~ . . . . .' ' . .. U ~ t~ - - t ,;.. ~' '. ,~ke. > r '- Chairman Farano was of the opinion that he would not favor a ~• reclassification because of its p-roximity to the R-1 homes onPthree sidesb~ect ~ unless development or ,,.. precise plans were submitted for consideration. ''~ _ Commissioner Rowland felt the property under consideration appeared to be within the sphere of influence of the commercial-recreation area. ~' Mr. Roberts noted that the General Plan land use,policy reflected this to be ~` appropr:iate for C-R uses, however, the C-R bound•aries had been established M~ prior to establishing the C-R 2one, which included site development standards; : whereupon Commissioner Rowland noted th'at boundaries of the General Plan were '~, `'~ flexible. y~; Commissioner Seymour noted that since subject property was bounded on three T~', sides by quality R-1 homes, to consider any reclassification for the property s{ without precise plans for the zone proposed could present problems in assuring „, the residential integrity of these homes was maintained. ~r.,,. ::x, ~ ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ,xa r~~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, K.-~ywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst. y ~ a ~ ~ ~{ RECESS - Chairman Farano declared a ten-minute recess at 3:40 P.M. '~ RECONVENE - Chairman Farano reconvened the meeting at 3:55 P,M., '' Commissioners Allred and Herbst being absent. _ .. ~;~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 20, 1971 71-610 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-14 (Cantinued) Prior to roll call, Commissioner Rowland requested clarification of the C-R area boundaries as compared to the General Plan land use description since it was his opinion the Commission had committed themselves for subject property by establishing the C-R symbology for subject property, Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the boundary of the C-R area was established prior to the establishment of the Commercial- Recreation Zone. RECLASSIF'ICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. CLAUDE A. SHERWOUD, 806 South Robertson, NO. 71-72-16 Los Angeles, California, Owner; LeRoy Rose, 1440 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, Cali~ornia, Agent; requesting that property described as; An irregularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.34 acres at the northwest corner of Riverdale and Lakeview Avenues, with approximate frontages of 296 feet on Riverdale Avenue and 310 feet on La;ceview Avenue be reclassified from the R-A(SC), AGRICULTURAL (SCENIC CORRIDOR), ZONE to the C-1(SC), GENERAL COMMERCIAL (SCENIC CORRIDOR), ZONE, Assistant Zo.,inq Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, existing zoning on the property, and the proposal to establish a commercial shopping center containing a market, a bank, and var3.ous commercial shope; located around a proposed service station for which site plans had been submi•tted; that the General Plan indicated a need for a neighborhood shopping ce~~ter at the intersection of Lakeview and Riverdale Avenues, and in view of th~_ already-approved hospital to the nortli of subject property and the previous].y-approved C-O zoning on the property to ; the west, this remaining parcel would appear most appropriate to implement the General Plan neighborhood commercial symbology. In addition, approval of the ~ commercial shopping center on this corner would preclude conflicting land uses adjacent to anticipated single-family residential uses on the other three ~ corners, i Mr. McDaniel noted that the site plan proposed landscaping which would conform to the requirements of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, however, it was diffi- cult to determine whether the roofs of the proposed structures, all of which were proposed as mission tile, were merely a mansard-type roof or, in fact, continue up to a common roof line, and in the event mansard-type roofs were ~ ~a ~ :~ d=3 . ,. . ~,._~ ~+~ t . . . . • ~~ . - - ~. ',~..~1 _ ,;~'' . ...1'.,. , . ', . ::Uc~ , . ~ _i ~- • _. ; t ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CTTY PLANNTNG CUMMISSION, September 20, 1971 71-611 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-1G (Continued) envisioned, the Planninq Comrission might wish to determine whether fvll roofs would not be more appropriate - this would conf•orm more closely to the SC Zone requirement that there be no roof-mounted equipment and wi~uld present a far more attractive view from the surrounding hills and any highrise buildings in the area. Furthermore, the applicant should be informed that the SC Zone requirements would preclude development of a service station at this location unless it were integrated within a shopping center, and the applicant should also be aware of the special signing provisions of the SC 2one which would preclude any free-standing signs on the property. Mr. LeRoy Rose, architect and agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he would agree with the staff's findings, and the only "K question he had was what did tne statement mean regarding a service station must be an integral part of a shopping center - did this mean the entire market would have to be developed at the same time, since they presently had the corner for sale for a service station and were attempting to negotiate for the shopping center. Mr. Mcnaniel noted that the staff's intent as to the statement was that the balance of the center was required as part of the service station approval, but no timing or phrasing was indicated. Mr. Rose then stated that it was their intent to continue the roof line to the peak, and it would not be a mansard-type roof. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted that it was the intent of the City not to permit three additional service stations at the other intersections, and the 70-foot high, free-standing, modular sign used along the freeways would not be permitted in the SC 2one. Furthermore, staff had been in contact with the State Divi~ion of Highways, who apneared to be receptive to the idea of signinq on freeways as to food, lodging, and servi.ce station facilities to obviate the necessity to have a 70-foot high sign for each tenant, and that any tenant in the center or the service station should be aware of this. Mr. Rose indicated he was fully aware of the requirements of the SC Zone, and then in response to a question by Chairman Farano, noted that they had not gone into the sign requirements as yet, therefore, they had no plans to indicate an integrated sign. Commissioner Gauer then inquired whether this would be a shopping center or just a service station; whereupon Mr. Rose replied that the entire project would include a service station, however, there were no leases signed at the present time for the stores. Chairman Farano then inquired whether there was any special time that the balance of the project would have to be developed since if the service station were approved, in all probabili.ty, this would Le constructed immediately. Mr. Rose replied that he did not think the developer wanted the zoning to negotiate for the sale of the property. Commissioner Seymour noted that approving subject petition would give the petitioner a"lock on that corner" for a shopping center. Mr. Rose noted that Mr. Sherwood was also the owner of the property at the northeast corner and was fully aware of th~ fact that only one service station would be allowed. Commissioner Rowland noted that the Commission would have to determine what was an integrated service station within the shopping center itself. Mr. Rose noted that even the shopping center would be developed in stages, with the probability of the bank being developed first after the service station; that they could not determine when any of the development would occur, and if this cvere a larger site, they could have built a satellite-type facility. Chairman Farano inquired of staff whether there was any requirement as to the time limitation of development of the entire center; whereupon Mr. Thompson replied that the Planning Commission had previously approved.an apartment =-¢ ~ . . "~~ _~ ~ t . ,~ .~ - ." _ -~ ^ 0 ~~ ' '. _~ - MINUTE5, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 20 1971 , 71-612 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-16 (Continued) ccmplex, and one of the conditions of approval was that the apartment complex be built before the commercial center, howeser, the City Counc.il had revexsed that requirement, and the City in th , e past, had never required total develop- ment of the project. Chairman Farano noted that whether or riot it was proper for the Commission, it wa: the Commission's duty to make r ecommend~ nns to the City Council on development in varyinq phases. ~ ~ ~T Mr. Thompson, in response to a question by Commissioner Seymour, noted that the General Plan indicated ~ a small convenience shopping center in this area, and given the fact that the hospital wa s on two sides of the shopping center and R-1 on the other corners, it would `` ~ r appear from a plannin stand keep all commer cial on one intersecti t *' ' on, allowing the other three corners to develop residentially - which corner would be mo t ~ 7 ;2 s apgropriate for commercia: was not def~ned in the General Plan. ~- Mr. Lowr y, in response to a statement made by Chairman Farano, stated that he had never seen an attem t m d b ;, ; p a e y a Planning Commission to require develop- ment of an entire project at one time h ;; , , owever, in order to answer it legally, he would have to have some time to r '~; ~ esearch this, but it would appear that this would be a rather "sticky wicket" to ' require development in p;iases. ~ Mr. Thompson note3 that the Commission had taken a position station i ~.,5 '; s regarding service n the scenic corridor, namely, that they must b c t `. ~, 5 ~ ;U en e integrated into a er, and the only way it could be integrated physicall entire w ld y ou be for the center to be developed. ' ~ Commissioner Rowland inquired why the Commission couZd not require a given percentage of the center if the service station was proposed first, and if this could not be done, then perhaps the Commissi ~ accordingly. on should amend the Code ~ rj Eight persons indicated their presence in opposition. ''* . .~ ,~ : `# ~ : ~ Mr. Hez.•sel Clauder, representing the Santa Ana Homeowners Association, 321 ~ Redrack: Avenue, appeared before the Commission and noted his association was desiroiis of expressing its disapproval of this type of development; that at une ti.me their community group was not in favor of the hospital going in because of the possible deterioration of the neighborhood, and the proposed reclassifi- cat:on was one example of substantiating their fears; that signing on the free- way regarding a service station, food, and shopping area would drag traffic into a residential area from the free•aay; that sub'ect p Y ~ grade school and a junior high school, which had no busPservice and children I walking down Riverdale in front of the proposed station would have to cross I over the ingress and egress ramp of the freeway; that they had been discussing some safety improvements for t'~is area with the City; that they did not need a shopping center, in spite of the fact that the General Plan indicated this; ~ that they would like to maintain the scenic corridor concept; that there were ~ sufficient shopping centers in the general area to permit people to drive to one, and in order to retain the high quality residential area, the proposed use of the property should not be permitted; that the hospital proposed at this intersection had offered to purchase the property, but no negotiations were made, and that the ~ptitions he had from 414 property owners in this area indicated the fact that people were not inter~sted in having commercial uses injected into their area; that although he had 414 signatures, these were only obtained over ~ weekend, and in all likelihood he could obtain many more before this was c~n :ered by the City Council; that the statement made by Commissioner Cai:er, ~garding a previoue petition in granting any zone change to increase t'~~ econc~nic value of the property should not be the Planning Commission's position, was their feeling also; that property values already increased in this area because of the hospital; and that the reason why the developers did not integrate the entire plan, if approved, was because there was insufficient support for a commercial shopping center in this area, and if approved, the residents of this area would boycott any commercial center, similar to the commercial center that was boycotted in Villa Park - theirs was the same reason -and that center was a skeleton of the use that was originally planned for it. , y . -- -- . c \ _ '' t . ~ :~ _ ., ' . .r»-=- ~ ';T; > ~ ,., :i ,.. . '-.,'~ ~•1 ;~ ;;,,' ~ ~ -~ , ~ ~ ' i ~ - ~ _ ' - / ~:-~!_ ~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CfiTY P~,ANNING COMMI~SION, September 20, 1971 71-613 RECLAS~I~'ICATION N0. 71-72-16 (Continued) Mr. Bob McQueen, 4831 McKinnon Drive, appeared before the Commission and noted he was about 300 yards from this corner, and now a service station and a shopping center were proposed; that the residents of this area did not need it, nor did they want it, and would boycott this facility; that he wanted the Commission to really take a look at this intersection since they had had many problems with children crossing this intersection, controlled by the lights at the off-ramp of the freeway, and the children would have to go up to the freeway exit to gain access to this center or cross over a busy street; that as a result of continued discussions with the City Council, the speed 13mit was reduced in this area, but motorists were still zooming south on Lakeview Avenue, and schools were just to the west of this intersection; that the service station presently located at Riverdale and Jefferson was having a difficult time in getting his service station started, even after having been there for a number of years, and this small area along the river bank had no need for a service station; and that the decision would be up to the City Council, however, anything the Commission could do to retain this as a residential area would be greatly appreciated. Mr. Winn Shugarman, project engineer of the proposed hospital at the northwest corner of Lakeview and Riverdale, appeared before the Commission and referring to the comments made by staff that since the hospital was to be located there, adding a commercial center at this intersection would be ideal - however, the hosp?tal should nor_ be classified in the same terms as a bank, service station, or other commercial uses since they, too, wanted a more quiet zone and screened themselves from the general area; that when the conditiot~al use permit for the hospital was approved, screening was required, and this was more than met in their design; that the hospital had, at various times, offered to purchase this property from Mr. Sherwoo3 with the intent of adding further screening around the corner, such as a par;cway with internal property for a specific purpose of additional parking and m~ving the medical center closer to the hospital to minimize the intrusion of the medical center onto the area; that residents of the area had worked with the hospital staff since the hospital had been approved, and the staff had alleviated many of the problems which were presented by residents of the area - this was one instance where careful planning would save trouble and problems in the future; that Mr. Sherwood was an absentee landlord in every sense of the word, and it was very difficult to purchar;e anything from him since one must find him first -perhaps the peti- tioner had just made up his mind to sell some of his property, and the hospital could be the only justified reason, he felt, for selling more of his property, although the representatives of the hospital had been trying to get him to quote the price for the pr.operty since they were interested in purchasing it for additional buffering and parking; that it was obvious the hospital would increase the traffic, but it would not be encouraging traffic from the freeway; that the hospital plans were designed with accessways, and the service station would be in the cross traffic in front of the hospital, which would be a dangerous situation - therefore, he felt one of the other corners could be considered for this commercial development which should not be considered in thc~ same light as a hospital; tha*_ there appeared to be no reason for the proposed type of development, even though the nurses and doctors might avail themselves of these facilities; and that it was obvious that the residents of the area would rather drive to another center rather than having the residential integrity of the area further encroached upon. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether Mr. Shugarman felt subject property would develop for medical and professional offices; whereupon Mr. Shugarman repliec? that that type of facility was already part of their master program which the City had approved. Commissioner Seymour noted that it ~^.ould appear Co be illogical to assume there would be no additional offir~~s of this type; whereupon Mr. Shugarman regl~e3 there was that potential in the distant future, but not for the present time, and it was their desire to use this additional property as further screening of thei~: entire project from Riverdale Avenue. Mr. Rose, in rebuttal, stated that the Commission chould consider the merits of the clevelopment s.;~:her than entering int,o the ~ ~ikle purchase of ~he property hy another garty. 'r:~ .- . ~r , _ ' '~ _ ` , i _ . ,~< ~ ~/ ~ "I t . l `' ~ ~. . :, . . ~ ~ ,- ~ ., / I I ~ ~' ~_~ MTNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 20, 1971 71-614 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-16 (Continued) Commissioner Gauer noted that the entire property already had a resolution of intent for R-1 pending. Mr. Rose replied that he did not feel the property would be developed for R-1 uses, and he would not want his residence to be at a major intersection; that he could not anticipate any other problem with the property since no other corner would have co+~~erclal, at least this would appear to be the City's thinking. Furthermore, this being at an off-ramp of the freeway, it would connect through to Yorba Linda and Imperial Highway, therefore, it would be a very heavily traveled street, and this project at this intersection would not create any more traffic than would be coming from other areas by the arterial highway uystem; and that although the hospital was interested in purchasing subject property, it would appear that Mr. Sherwood was not inter- ested in selling his property at this time. Therefore, to what use could this propeity be put if'not f~r the groposed use? , THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer again reiterated the fact that all the property around subject property and subject property had a resolution of intent to R-1, even though the hospital was approved in the R-1 area on a conditional use permit, the property still had said resolution of intent; that he personally could not see the :._ed for a service station at this intersection, particularly after noting the number of service stations that were boarded up and not in operation and the applications the City had been receiving for self-service pumps in existing service stations, therefore, at this point in time the proposed reclassification did not appear i:o be appropriate. Commissioner Seymour noted that the Planning Commission was appointed by the City Council to make recommendations to their Body, therefore, it was the Commission's job to plan for the community and the citizens of the City of Anaheim, and the General Plan indicated that a small commercial center appeared to be the legical approach for development of the property. However, when 414 persons ~n the immediate area were so concerned with the development of this property, to state they would boycott any commercial development, then perhaps the Commission should take heed. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-16 be disapproved on the basis that there appearen to be no need for the proposed use and a resolution of intent to R-1 was alread~• pending on the property. The foregoing resolution lost by a 3-1-1 vote, Commissioners Kaywood, Gauer and Seymour voting for the motion; Commissioner Rowland voting against the motion; and Commissioner Farano abstaining. Commissioner Farano noted that land use was determined on not only what was desired but also what projections were needed for the future of this area to make the city a better place in which to live; therefore, these people had every right to boycott any facility they wanted, however, he was not prepared to vote on this proposal since he would like to give more close study to this area. Commissioner Seymour stated the poi;;t ^e was trying to m.ske was the fact that the Commission was concerned norma3.3.y with land use where only two or three property owners indicated their concern, but when petitions signed by 414 persons in the area indicat~u their opposition, then how could the Commission impose this on people in the area, whether the General Plan indicated it or not. Commissioner Gauer indicated he preferred having the property remain with the present resolution of intent to R-1, however, if there had been re+;uests for this type of use by residents of the area, then the Commission should consider this, but whea one viewed all the closed and boarded service stations ir~ the city, even in the industrial area, then there appeared to be no need r'nr this type of use. Commissioner Kaywood stated she also felt as Chairman Farano in that she would like to view this entire area, and how committed was the City to consider a small convenience shopping centtr in this location, paztiaularly with so many people being opposed to it. ___~__ .., . . ... .. ~, _ .. , . . ^~._.~..,..,,,,,,_, `; .. .: ~ i. ~ I V ~ MINUTES, CITY P.LANNTNG COMMISSION, September 20, 1971 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-16 (Continued) _... __ _ _. __ .._.~..,.,._ ~ , ' _~ 71-615 Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson, noting in reviewing studies of the General Plan staff had reviewed the Hill and Canyon General Plan to consider incorporating it into the Anaheim ~~neral Plan and several ways were demonstrated regarding shopping centers, however, staff felt that small convenience shopping centers would prove more beneficial to this area than large centers which would create vast traffic increases. Many cities took the approach to have shopping centers at arterials, but staff would be glad to prepare something to point out tkie assets and liabilities. If the Commis~ion determined that this petition be denied, then the Commission should review the land use policy in the Hill and Canyon General Plan so that they could remove these commercial designations. Furthermore, most of this area had been in orange groves, but it was the staff's and the Commission's responsi- bility to do long-range planning, and this particular petition might set the pattern for any further commercial•faciliti~es in .the canyon. Chairman Farano noted that when the Planning Commission and staff projecte3 uses in the canyon when the General Plan was considered, considerable thought 1 and consideration was iven to the location of sho . g pping centers so that they would not be placed indiscriminately to the detriment of the area; therefore, if this center were not approved, where would the logical place to locate it be since in good planning it was not only for the presEnt but for the future, and there might be a need for these centers in this area, but h2 felt there should be some other alternative which could be considered better. Commissioner Kaywood noted that Mr. Rose indicated the petitioner was not interested in selling to the hospital, however, if subject petition were denied, would the petitioner then be interested in selling to the hospital; whereupon Mr. Rose replied that he had no answer to that question. Commissioner Seymour noted that the only thing the homeowners would derive from denial would be retention of the environment of *.he area. Chairman Farano stated he wanted to place a convenience shopping center in the proper place, not necessaxily on subject property. Mr. Rose then inquired whether or not staff would prepare a report to the Commission regarding this study. Chairman Farano indicate3 he would not only like to have studies nade, but reccmmendations by staff as to why the c=nter should be located at this inter- section, why this spot was selected, and whether there was any alternative, as well as the reason whyit should not be located there. Mr. Rose noted that these symbols were located throughout the canyon on the General Plan. Chairman Farano noted that he still would like alternative locations and need for shopping centers in the canyon. Commissioner Rowland noted that this :vas the danger of petting a philosophy in picture form so that people might better understand it. Furthermore, since the hopsital was a non-profit organization, it, too, enjoyed condemnation privileges. ' Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-16 to *_'~~ meeting of October 18, 1971, to allow time for staff to make further studies as to the need, alternative requirements, and ' whether neighborhood shopping centers were necessary throughout the canyon. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The opposition requested that an evening session be schecluled; however, the Commission noted that the hearing was continued but not reopened, and it would be reopened only if the Commission determined further information was necessar.y from either the petitioner or the opposition, and that the opposition had expressed their opposition quite forcefully with the petition signed by 414 persons. ~. s ! ~-' . ~ 5 ~ ,~ ~ '- . ~ ~ . ~ '~~ . . I .~ ! y j ' '~•-~ ~ l . ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 20, 1971 ~:^ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ROBERT H. GRANT CORPORATION, ANAHEIM N0. 71-72-15 HILLS, INC., 1665 Sou~th Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; property described as: An irregularly- TENTATIVE MAP OF shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 125 TRACT NOS. 7566, acres lying generally north and south of the easterly 7567, 7568, AND extension of Nohl ranch Road and easterly of Royal Oak 7569 Road. Property presently classified R-A(SC), AGRICULTURAL (SCENIC CORRIDOR), 20NE (Parcel 1); R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ~ ZONE (Parcel 2). ~*- ~: = ~ ~ REQUESTED CLASSIFI CATION: Parcel 1- R-H-10,000(SC), RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE ~ ~,~`,;,} ~~'i , LOW-DENSITY, SINGLE-FAMILY (SCENIC CORRIDGR) ZONE; ~~ ~i ~ ~ Parcel 2- R-H-10,000, RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE, LOW- ~ ' ~ ,,.3' DENSITY, SINGLE-FAMILY, ZONE. , :;~ TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: R. H. GRANT CORP., 1665 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California. Engineer: VTN, 2301 _., Campus Drive, Irvine, California. Tract No. 7566 propose<1 for subdivision i.nto 85 :~+ R-H-10,000 zoned lots; Tract No. 7567 proposed for - subdivision into 60 R-H-10,000 zoned lots; Tract No. 7568 proposed for subdivison into 98 ~ R-H-10,000 zoned lots; and Tract No. 7569 i proposed for subdivision into 83 R-H-10,000 zoned a ~. ,:~ lots. Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDanie~ r_viewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and tne groposal to subdivide approximately 125 acres int~ 326 R-H-10,000 zoned lots through four separate tentative ~ract maps; that a portion of subject property was within the Scenic Corridor Overlay 2one; that all the streets within the development would conform with the City of Anaheim hillside standards with the exception that the applicant proposed to eli.:,inate sidewalks on the short cul-de-sacs; that ~ots within the subdivison conformed to the minimum square footage requirement of t.he R-H-10,000 Zone, and all lots within the area covered by the (SC) Zone conformed to the specia~. regulations imposed; and that the vlans indicate that sewers and storm drain facilities for the major portion of the development would be handled by way of easements through adjoining property to the north. Mr. McDaniel, in evaluating the proposal, noted that the Anaheim General Plan j designated this area as being appropriate for low density residential develop- j ment, and the proposed R-H-10,000 2one was one of those zones that was intended ~ to implement the density designation, therefore, the requested reclassification : would appear to be appropriate; and that the City Engineer had indicated that ' it would be to the best interest of the future homeowners in the area and the I community in general to have•sidewalks on all streets within the area. Mr. Ron Dickerson, representing Grant Corporation, appeared beEore the Commis- sion and stated they were quite excited with the initial Anaheim Hills project, ; and that this proposal would meet ali City standards, and then presented ' development packages for the proposal to the Commission. Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not the representative could discuss the elimination of sidewalks since it was his opinion these should not be eliminated in this area; that these sidewalks could be locat:d adjacent to the street curb and be at least 4 feet wide since people planted all types of shrubbery in the parkways, making it difficult for people to open their auto- mobile doors and for women to step from the automobile to the curb; that when hz was superintendent of schools, this was one of thA requirements he had requested when tracts were being appraved; and that many areas in Anaheim had no sidewalks because these areas had been annexed into the city after the subdivision5 were developed, said subdivisions having no sidewalks because they were not required by the County. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not a geological survey had been made on this area; whereupon Mr. Dickerson replied that both a geological and soils study had been m~de, which was neither good nor bad, but the problems presented could be resolved through working with the City engineering staff. -_.:~~,,~,'~ ~ , -- _ 't .~ ~ ~. 'y a ` ~ _ U _ f l f C~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 20, 1971 ~;, ~ ~~ ~ .. ; ; 71-61.7 ~ RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-15 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 7566, 7567, 7568, AND 7569 (Continued) Commissioner Kaywood also noted that under staff's evaluation of this proposal there appeared to be a portion of subject property still within the agri:ultural preserve and inquired whether or not this could be resolved. Mr. Dickerson reglied that this portion was only the s~,ope areas. Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that he did not know whether , this would be legally permitted. ,?;-.;~•:_,, Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry aZso indicated he did not know whether this ~ would be legally permitted. ,~ .~: ;~ Mr. Dickerson then stated this would be removed from the map if it was dis- ruptive 'and di~d not agree with the requirements of the agricultural preserve since this was indicated on the slope but was not to be part of the property line, and that development of this area would be a considerable distance in the future. , 1. i; =f - `'~ . 'J;~ ~ 4~~ ~ j I ~. , ~e ` Commissioner Seymour inquired what opposition did the developer have to side- walks; whereupon Mr. Dickerson replied they were not opposed to them but felt it would be more aesthetically pleasing, and they would offer to provide the trees for this area. However, it was their intent to deviate from the standard subdivisions in this manner only for aesthetics. Commissioner Gauer noted that by requiring the sidewalks and curbs to be separated with a parkway, this prohibited pedestrians to ha~e clear access to their vehicles; therefore, he felt the sidewalks should be placed adjacent to the curb so that people would not have to enter the streets to gain access to their automobiles. Mr. Dickerson then stated they would provide sidewalks since this would not be a difficult problem. Chairman Farano noted that there was one rather basic que~tion he would like answered, and that ~:as, when the Planning Commission adopted the Ar.aheim Hi11s concept for the development of the former Nohl Ranch, a General Plan amendment was also adopted for the entire area, and as a matter of fact, there was a bit of legislation adopted, namely, the planned community concept based on the General Plan amendment - even though the Commission had some reservation, they felt the nlan presented was good, however, now it would appear before a spade of dirt was turne3 over, there was a very substantial deviation from this plan, namely, that the area formerly planned for a lake was now proposed for develop- ment with homes. However, he was not criticizing the development since he would agree with the zone and the proposed type of homes, but where ~vould this leave the City as far as the General Plan amendment and the oriqinal concept plan? Mr. Dickerson replied that the initial development was only proposed by Anaheim Hills, but the Grant Corporation was more familiar with the geology and the proposed lake, but from his understanding, it was physically unfeasible to develop the lake. Chairman Farano noted he understood the geological phase, buL where would this leave the City and how much more of this plan would not ]~e ~easible - this was not a criticism, but where would the City stand and would there be any more substantial changes, or what? Mr. William Stark, 1665 South Brookhurst Street, representing Anaheim Hills and the developer, Grant Corporation, appeared before the Commission and replied to the Planning Commission's questions and stated that what was being discussed was the General Plan and the plan presented by them was just a gene.ral plan and not a precise plan; that they had spent many thousands of dollars to carry out the conceptual changes with the City golf course boundaries ahanging and road alignments being changed; that $50,000 was spent on a study for the lake and other problems as to water control, etc.; tbat their decision regarding this lake was that it was not feasible to develop; and that there would be changes in some areas where densities might be increased while others would be reduced and altered. ~ . ` ~y : . ~ ~.~o.,..~..~+ .,.d.e.o.m . r , :,. , =~~ ~: ' . .. ~ ~~ _ ' . . .~ _ .^ . - ~ . . ~ i '. . . . . .. l --- . ~ -~- . --~ C~ (~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 20, 1971 ;, `) 71-618 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-15 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 7566, 7567, 7568, AND 7569 (Continued) Chairman Farano indicated he did not want to appear to be "nit picking" the idea of changing this plan, but he was concerned with the basic concept of the planned community proposal - was it basically intact3 Mr. Stark replied that in his mind it was basically the same, but then there were five Commissioners, and he did not know how the others felt about it. Chairman Farano then stated that with the absence of the lake, this was a substantial change, however, if the developer found it fatal to have the lake where it was proposed, he could understand this, but he wculd like to know if the general concept still was intact, and if not, could c.he City expect revised concept plans so that the Commission could know where this development was headinc~ since he did not like to have a general concapt being whittled away by bits and pieces, and half way through there would not be any continuity and the absence of a good plan, since this was not what the Commission or City Council wanted - therefore, he would like some assurance that this wou`.d not happen. Mr. Stark advised the Commission that there were some changes in the roaclways which had to be done to meet certain City desires, the general plan for water services since none was available in this area, and the joint powers a.rrange- ments of the Cities of Anaheim ar,d Orange where just a land use concept was proposed; but ~n the parameters, the concept was still being carried out - they were testing alternative methods, and very shortly they would be in with a plan for very large open lots with equestrian facilities, but they were still retaining the basic residential use with recreational orientation. Commissioner Rowland then inquired whether the water plan or lakes, ~~c., would disappear from the plan. •1j Mr. Stark replied that one lake had not been explornd - thls was the one north ~ ~ of the reservoir; that they had spent considerable money in studying this , property, taking from experience which the City had on the reservoir, but the ~3 '-j lake idea was not being considered any more because the State was very concerned3 ~4~ with problems of water near residential areas in the event of earthquakes. ~ t'~ Chairman Farano then stated that clustering of housing and irre ular o ~ ~ had disa Y P=n ~p"='P 1 ;;.y ppeared so that now what was being proposed was homes in rows without ~ i_t~ much consideration of open space - was this part of the concept which had i changed, or was it still being planned to continue irregular open space? ~~ Mr. Stark replied that there would be some irregular open space, and if he ~ ~ could test the feasibility of the one lake concept, the water proposal stili `:' might be effective, but there was still the problem of going from a concep~ ~~ to an engin::ering plan and the legal criteria. Furthermore, the City Attorney ~ did not know whose responsibility it would be or what the lot lines would be, and that when one went pioneering, one had to consider the wishes of the Commission, the City offices, the Code, and the people who worked with them. : Mr. Dickerson noted that the proposed tracts conformed with the General Flan and staff requirements. Chairman Farano inquired whether the developer would stipulate to providing sidewalks; whereupon Mr. Dickerson replied in the affirmative. ;: j' Commissioner Kaywood requested clarification regarding the property to the south and west; whereupon ZoninS 3upervisor Charles Roberts noted that this was planned at ultimate development of the property after the agricultural preserve was no longer effective. Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not this would be the same operation ~ as that of Trans-America Development Company ranch area on the way to Pomona, ;, where one company had the entire area but given areas were assigned certain developers to build the projects. ,~ Mr. Stark advised the Commission that his company was a land development ~,;? company and were a part of the Santa Anita Corporation; that they would be I. selling land and controlling its progress and also developing the master '~ facilities for allocation, but they were not builde-rs of homes. . .-._~.~c,_ u,+ a.~ ~ ' ~. ; " `_i ' . . ' . iii~:~ .._ , ' ^~ ~ 4 j ' '/ / ~._._ ~ .~.~.., --. ~1~_~~ ~ MIDJUTES, CIZY PLANNING COMMI53ION, September 20, 1971 ~/ ~ ; ~ 71-619 RECI.ASSIFICATI(1N TO. 71-72-15 AND TENTATIVE MAP pF TRl+CT N~,;;,. 7566, i567, 7568, AND 7569 (Continued) Commissioner Gauer noted that Trans~Am; rica ,rad de:%a7,,g;:; , for their entire project, although he did not know if, tner. had bren ~r,x r.nanges to their ma.ter plan, but th~ 1~n:i was solu to individual c~ev;:lopers according to the plan, and then inquire~ wh~%,her or not Grant t~o.r;~c•~rztion planned to sel? off land in a similar manner. P-7r. Stark noted tk-at he had never seen a master F)~.2iS1 that did not change, but this would be ? s~milar manner in which they wou:ld i~e developing the land, :,ommissione~t Kaywood then inquired about dedic:~i:iun of the pipel:?.nF easement for r3,ding and hiking trails; whereu~.on Mr. Sc.ar!,c sta~ed he wou~d be glad to d~qfcate and improve this for that purF~oce, but it appeared tha~ only the C~T•mis~ion and he wante,d it, and no ~~ne else war~ted to become lnvolved in it. {:om:ni~•sioner Xaywood noted she had heard otnerwise. ,~;a Cc~missioner Gauer noted tha. ;it a meet}.n, of the Southern CaZ.',.forr,a P1aniling Coinyress in San Dimas, he had talked wi;:i~ som~eone from the Counzy who had indicated they were working om th~ equestr±ar, and hiking trails; whereupor. . Mr. Stark ~tated he srould be glad to dedicate this. Commissioner Farano noted that the Commisston had a similar que:stion face +~he:n - on maintenance of the open spaces, and Mr. Stark was correct thrit it was a great idea, but no one wanted to accept the .respon;ibility for it, and as a Commissioner, he might ask for this, but he did ?:o~ iike the ir:ea of not ;;~ being able to give them ~ome idea of 1-iow it could "e done - th~;rr~fore, if no ;j solution cor~ld be presented, then the City should ~top demandi-~,: this of the ~ deve.lopers; and then inquired whethe•r the Cit had y g:Lven any tho~ight cn how ~; maic:tenance of the open spzce, trails, etc., could be accu~uplish~:3. ,:~~.71 Mr. Lowry advi~ed tlse Commission tl,zat :lr. G.t~i~,ier had been haviny conversations with Mr. Stark, but +,:hat he., p.~rsonall~,, F~ad r~~~t been in on these 49iscussions. ~hairman Farano not..; crat the Cii:y shc.uld laave the method agre:ed upon bPtween the City and the de~~loper, and i;c the City had nothing, then they should stop reqTxiring this of L.he p•ronerty devalcper. A~sistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted that on. the tract aYrroved on the Lusk property, the Commission required this dedication as p;~rt of the master plan of riding and hiking trails, therefore, it was feasible t::~t the Commission ~;ould require conditicnal deda.cation, and if development was ;zo~ feasible, then the City would not accept this dedication. Chairman Farano further ob:s~>rved that this might be all right for th~ City but ~ ~ the developers o~ould be pr~.Faring plana, ~nd if the ~ommission were consile_cing ~ approving the ±ract maps, the,-: the Commission should be able to tell the ~ * developer somethi_ng and enter into an agreement, and if this could not be done, i then the trac; maps .,nould be laid out without this oonsideration. ~ ~ :.'1" Mr. Thom~,sot. noted that thPSe ea;ements were already existing, and nothing could be develol~ed over ~hem as far as the develo1er was cor.cerned - the only thing ihe staff was suggesting was to have this conditional dedication on an ,~~ ~~' existinq easement in the ever.t iuture considez~ation was to be made for these ~ trails, ar.d tbat ctaff could be nxrected to give this a high priority to ~ dete.rmine the feasibil:tty cf it in thE c~.nyon - at 1Cxst it would not close tha ~ door on that easemer;. ~ Commissioner Rowland tiien suggaste.9 that the Commissinn require acceptance of an offer of dedication at t ~s po3nt in time, and obviously in the future this weuld be worked out. ~ Fur~her discussion was held Y~y the Commission regarding the pipeline easement ` ` and the re~zu9.xement ~f conditional dedicatior for the hiking and riding trails. Commissioner ,eymour noted tf!at Chairman Paraao had brouqht out a very salient ; point, and if the Commission ne~3ed these problems resolved, then the Ccmmis- `~ sion should give staff ~r the d veloper some dixectinn - otherwise the developer1~ ;~ would develon every piece of the land ou;: on the ranch. ; ~ ~ . ~~"~, i~soaiiwr+~c~~oww~~.~tFSt.lro~0iw~ :.:~++e~d~~s...... . ~t . .. . . . . . .. .- , . .~~ . ... ' . . . .. ~ , ~ 4~ ~ ~ ~ -; : _ ;` ~ r : ~. i -- _ ~~_ ,~ - ~ ~ ~~ U c.~ 1 ~- MINUTES, CTTY PLANNTNG C02dMTSSZON, September 20, 1971 71-620 ,I RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-15 AND TENTATIVE AfAP OF TRACT NOS. 7566, 7567, , 1 7568, AND 7569 (Continued) 7 ~4 ~,` Chairman Farano stated he would like some formal action so that the staff („ ~ I could take this to the City Council to resolve. t / M.:, Lowry advised the Commissior. he would discuss the legality issue with Mr. Gei.sler and would try to have an answer fos the Commission at the next meeting. F••rtliermore, the report the Commission asked for several weeks ago was being : ayed because of problems encountered. ;:; ?:3 i ;;'"'c j. #, ,: e `• aklt ;. ; ~,~ ~ a Mr. Dickerson no~ed that this easement was readily identifiable since it was at t2ie northwes:. corner of Anaheirn Hills adjacent to the Lusk property. :v'o one appeared in opposition. THE HEARiNG WAS CLOSED. C~mn~is~ioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-190 and moved for its passage and adcption to recommend to the City Council that Petitior. for Reclassifica- tio» ,Io. 71-72-15 be approved, subject to conditions and the stipulation by the developer that sidewalk~ would be installed and that conditional dedication of an easement over the Four Corners Pipeline would be given. (See Resolution Book) On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMN.ISSIONERS: Fa~ano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: CON!MISSIONF.RS: None .ABSENT: COMM2SSION~RS: Allre3, Y.erbst. ~o.nmissioner Seymour offered a motian, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, and MOTION CARRIED, to approve Tentat3ve Map of Tract No, 7566, subject to the followinq conditions: (1) Tha,, r~he approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7566 is granted subjeot to the approval of Reclassification No. 71-72-15. (~) That should this subdivision be ~eveloped as more than one subd~.visian, each subdivision thereo.f sha~l be submitted in tentative form for approval. (3) That al~ lats within tF,:i:s tract sha).1 be serv%~d by undery.round utilities. (4) ^,:.ac a final tract map of subject prc~per'cy shall be submit.:ea to and approved by the City Council and then be recorde3 'n the officA of the Orange County RecoxcIer. t5) That any proposed covenants, conditions, and re:>trictions sha21 be submitted to and approved by the City Atto-ney's Office pxior to City Council approval of the final trt:ct map, an3, further, that the approved covenants, conditioc-s, c~8 raa.trictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final izact map. (6) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim pri~r to approval of a final rr%nct maF, (7) That the owner(s) o' subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate pazk 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. (8) That drainage of subjec.t t-act shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engi~eer. This sha11 include trans- porting the runo£f origina?:ing both abo~~e and within the tract by an approved method to a satisfactory point of disposal. ; Ai4.y.~L~ . .. . . .. .. , . - -~ - ~ , ~ _ - `T Y . . . . . . . .....,.. . . ~ . . . . : .Q '. ' . ' • ' ~k ~'. . . ~~,.. . .. . . - . ._ . . ~~ . . . . ..~ ~ ~ +"~„t."'~r~, .. 7' \ ~: ~ . ; ----- ~._._ , - ~ _ _ ~ , ~~ . 1 (~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING ~pMMISSIODi, September 20, 1971 ~. ~ ~ ~ .' ,..:~.~ _ ~.. ~ F ~(:: ` '_l ~. ~( ; ~:: ; T I 1 :1 •~ `~ ;.I '. .i :'-~ `•; ,.~ ;~ :i ~ 71-621 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-1!~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. '7566, 7567, 7568 AND 7569 (Continued) (9) That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley open~.ngs, to Nohl T.anch Road and Royal Oak Road shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. (10) That in accordance with City Councll policy, a 6-foot masonry wall (or an alternative approved by the Development Services Department) shaZl be constructed in the south portion of Lot Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 23 through 30, adjacent to Nohl Ranch Road, and in the west portion of Lot Nos. 4, 5, and 6, adjacent to Royal Oak Road, and in the north portion of I~ot Nos. 31 through 34 and 83 through f35, a3jacent to Nc.hi kanch Road. Subject wall shall be measnred from the highest finished grade level of sui9ject property or the adjacent roadways, whichever is highest. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilitiES shall be installed within the slupe areas of each lot adjacent to the roadways and in the street parkways and the Four Corners Pipeline Easement. Plans for said landscaping shall be sub- mitted to and subject to the approval of the Parkkay Maintenance Superintendent. Following installation and acceptance, the property owners shall assume responsibility for maintenance of said landscapinq to the lot lines, regardless of the location of :~e masonry walls. The City of Anaheim shail assume responsibility for maintcnance of landscaping in the Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak Roads rights-of-way. Commissioner.S.eymour offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, and MOTION CARRI~ED,:,;;t~ approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7567, subject to the followi;ng .~cond`iti.ons : (,1') T•ti'at the appr~val of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7567 is granted sub~ect,':to tne approval of Reclassification No. 71-72_)5, (2) •That s,hould thi~ subdivision be developed z~ more than one subdiv,ision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in fenta,tive fosm for approval. (3) ' That~all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. (4) That;a final tract map of subject property shall be submittec! to and.approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office'o.f the Oranqe County Recorder. ' (5) That any proposed covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be " submitted to and approved by the City Attormey's Office prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, and, further, _ that the app_:oved covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be recorded concurren,tly with the final tract map. - (6) That street names shall be~approved by the City of Anaheim prior tc approval of a finai tract map. • (7) That the owners of subject propert~, shall pay to the City of ri Anaheim the appropriate park an:i recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be approprilte by the City Council, said fees to be pai3 at the time the ruilding permit is issued. :' ` (g) That drainage of ~ubject tract shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. This sha11 include trans- porting the runoff originatinq both above and within the tract by an approved method to a satzsfactory point of disposal. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, and j MOTION CARRIED, to approve Tentative Map of Tract 'rlo, 75yg, subject to the following conditions: ~. ~fie ~4_...~ , . _,. . - . ~~ . ` ~ ~~~. ) `; ~ ; i i 1 ^ ~ , i - _ _ i ,- , _.~ _.._...-. ~: _ ~ ~ t _~ ~ ; ~, ~ MINIITES, CITY PLANNING COMMISS'[ON, September 20 1971 ~ , 71-622 j RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-15 A'.i~ TENTATIVE MAP 0'F ~•ICA~:T NOS. 7566, 75(i7, ' 7568, AND 7569 (Continued) ~ • (1) That approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7568 is granted ! subject t t . o he approval oE Reclassification No. 71-72-15 ~ , now gending. (2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdi~vision thereof shall bE submitted i .n tentative form for aFproval. _ .~ . ~ ~ ,.': (3) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground , utilities. '` (4) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted { to and ± approved by the City Council and then be reco~ded in ~ the offic i e of the Orange County Recorder. ~ (5) That any proposed covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be ~ submitt d t ,~ e u and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior r to City Council approval of th_ final tract map, and, further i that the , approved covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. ~ ~; r; (6) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim ' rioi t p o approval of a final tract map. ``J ?'' (7) Tha~t the owners o•P sub'ect ] property shall pay to the City of A h ,a, na eim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees a y~ s determined to be appropriate by the City Council said fees t , ~ , o be paid at the time the building permit is issued. . ~,;"~ (8) That drainage oF subject tract shall be disposed of in a ` ~ ~' manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. Tnis shall include trans- ~ porting the runoff originating both above and within the tr t >F ?T~ ac by an approved method to a satisfactory point of disposal. 5 "`~' ~ -^ ~ :: ~~~ (9) That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley i openin s t , ~',.._„., ~ g , o Nohl Ranch Road shall be dedicated to the City of j Anaheim, ~. ~ ~ (10) That in accordance wlth City Council olic `~ ~ wall (or an alternative a p y~ a 6-foot masonry - ~ pproved by the Development Services '`~~ Department) shall be constructed in the north portion of Lot ",'.`''~ Nos. 1 thTOUgh 7~ 69~ 70~ 72~ 73~ 95, 96, dnd 98~ adjacent to ,~' ~~ Nuhl Ranch Road. Subject wall shall be measured Erom the ~~ highest finished grade level of subject property or adjacent `s roadway, whichever is highest. Reasonable landscaping, including ;~ irrigation facilities, shall be installed wit ' hin the slope areas of each lot adjacent to Nohl Ranch Road and in the street park- ~ ways. Plans for said landscaping shall be submitted to and ' subject to the approval of the parkway maintenance superintendent. " F.olloking installation and acceptance, the property owners shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping to the lot lines, regardless of the location of the masonry walls. The City of Anaheim shall assume responsibility for maintenance `~ of landscaping in the Nohl Ranch Road right-of-way, Commissioner Seymour offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, and MOTION CARRIED, to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7S6g, subject co the ~= following conditions: r,.:.-,:~~. . r~ (1) That the apprc~val of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7569 is granted subject to th~e approval of Reclas^ification No. 71-72-15. (2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one t subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. R' ~ .~. ; ,~: ~~ ; ~ ; ~-- 4 _ w._.i_"".. ' ~L _ : ,1 Y _~'tA~~ Y `. . . \ . : . ^~ _ ~ \. ! _ _ ..., >~ ~ t . , U ~ C~ M~NVTES~ ^_xTY' PT,ANNTNG COMMI~oION~ September 20, 1971 71-623 RECLASSIFICATTON NO. 71-72~15 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACP NOS. 7566, 7567, 7568, AND 7569 (Continued) (3) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. (4) That a final tract map of su~ject property shall be submitted to and approvei by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the ~range County Recorder, (5) That any proposed covenants, conditions, and re,stricti~ns shall be submitted to and approved by the City Att~rney's Office prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, and, further, that tY:~ approved covenants, con3itions, and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. (6) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. (7) That the owner(s) 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 Cour.cil, said fees to be psid at the time the building permit is issued. (8) That drainage of subject tract shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City ~ngineer. This shall include trans- porting the runoff originatinq both above and within the tract by an approved method to a satisfactory point of disposal. (9) Tha~t the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley oper~ings, to Nohl Ranch Road shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. (10) That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wali (or an alternative approved by the Development Servic~s De~artment) shall be constructed in the south portion of Lot Nos. 1 through 11, 47, 58, 82, and 83 adjacent to Nohl Ranch Road. Subject wall shall be measured from the highest finished grade level of subject property or adjacent roadway, whichever is hiqhest. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the slope areas of each lot adjacent to Nohl Ranch Road, and in the street parkways and in the Four CorneXS Pipeline Easement. Plans for said landscapiny sha11 be submitted to and subject to the approval of the park- way maintenance superintendent. Following installation and acceptance, the property oHners shall assume responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping to the lot lines regardless of the location of the masonry walls. The City of Anaheim shall assume responsibility for maintenanae of landscaping in the Nohl Ranch Road right-of-way. REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS VARIA23CE NO. 1892 (Joseph Truxaw) - Property located at the northeast corner of Vermont Avenue and Lemon Street. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that at the Planning Commission meeting ' of August 23, 1971, the Planning Commission had terminated all proc:eedi•n,gs on, Variance No. 1892 on the basis that they had granted Variance No. 22'82; however, subsequent to that date, staff had determined that in order for the property owner to develop the property as he proposed an3 since pcztions of Variance No. 1892 had already been exercised, it would not be apprapriate to terminate Variance No. 1892, therefore, he would recommen3 that the Commission rescind their previous action. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-191 and moved for its passage and adoption to rescind the Planning Commission action of terminating Variance No. 1892 in Resolution No. PC71-166 on the basis that the variance had already ~~-c . !+ - _ .. :r;. ;c'S ~:..e:~.w,.=t ,,, ` . y d _ ~ ` ''' _ f _ . ~;, f .,, . ~ ~~ .. ~. , , _. ~ ': ' i _ . . .,. _ < , . - _ __ _ . _. . , ' ~ . ~ . . . .. ~. . . -.._»~~i/yy ... ~~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 20, 1971 71-624 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM NO. 1 (Continued) been exercised, and porticns o~.the waivers would be used in conjunction with the newesY. variance that had'been approved by the Planning Commission. Thereforw:;; `Variance No. 1892 would remain in full force and effect. (See Itesolutiox Book) On roll call the foregoing re~olution was passed by the fol2owing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst. ADJOURNMENT - There beinq no further business to discuss, Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to adjaurn the meeting. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 5:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~!~`~/~/J~L/ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planninq Commission :~ y,. , ¢,~„ .., .,.. - , ,~ . ... . ,.. . ~ • - - , ;. .- .i ~ ~ ~, , _ , _ . _ - , .. ~ _ .., ;. ._: . ,_ . , , ~ - , '. ; ~ - ,~ . . : .