The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1973/08/20~ R C 0 MICROFILMING SERVICE, INC. : . , .,, , . ~ ,. ~.J ~ ~ City Ha~l.l Anahaim, CaliParn.ta Auyu~t 10 ].973 A REf.+ULAR tAL"E'~ING OP' TNE ANAHL'IM CITX PLANNTNG COKMI98IUN REGULAR - A xaquler meating of the Anaheim City Pl.anninq Commieaion MELTING wee cellcd to ordor by Chair.man Ge-uor at 2~~U p.m., +a quorum bhing preeent. YR~;SENT - CliAIRMANs Cnuer. - CQMMISSIONr~RB: Allred, Farano, :ierbeC, Kinq, Rowland(wha enta~red khe Counc~.l Chembez at 2:1.0 p.m.) , Seymour. A~SENT: - COMMISSIONSRSZ None. PRESENT - Aesiatant Devolopment Sorvice3 Uiroctors Ronald Thompeon Deputy City Att~rney: Frank Lowry pffice Engine~ri ~ay Titus Zoninq Supervisor: Gha~rlea Robertd Associate I~lanner~ 1:. Ron Contreras C~mmi.as.i.on S~crAtary: Aiin Krebe PLEDG~ oF - Commiasianer Seym~ur.led in thc P].adgo of Allagiance to ALI.CGIANCF tho Flag. APFROVAL OF - Commisaiocier King offered a motiion, r.,econded by CommieRionea~ THE MINUTES Allred and MOTION CARRIk;n, to approvE~ L•he minut~a of the mEeti.ng of July 23, 1973 subj~ct: to Che foll~winq coxrec:t~~mes Paqa 73~424, para. 10, last li~nu should r.ead: "courteoua employeec~" Page ~~~-425, par.a, 8, lin~ 2 sho~~ld read: "go~d service, nnd cotxrteous Fmployeea." '+ARxANC~ - PURLTC HEARING. ~EAGEF. T& GLADYS K. : MI'PH, 151 Ms.r~monte N0. 2539 Drive, Fullerton, Ca. ~2632, Own4raj requeetinq kaiv~ra of: (R) PERMIT`PED U~ES IN THE M-1 ?.CME, (B) MINTMUM BUZLDZNG S^TBACK, (C) M:[NIMUM L'ANDSCAPED SETIIACK, (D) MZ!VIlAUI'~4 VER- TICAL CL£AFiAD1CE FUP. PRIVATE DRIVE, (E) 1NAXIMUNI NUMBER UI+' PERMxTTE1) FREE- STANDING SIGNS , (F) REQUIRED El1CLOSURE OF OLITDOOEt USE W1TH A 6-FOOT HIGii MASONRY W~1LL, ANP (G) MINIMUM NUMB~R OF REQUIREA PAKKING SpACES TO ~STABLISH AN AUTOMOBILE SALE5 AND ~ERVIC~ AGENCE on property dcacribed aes An irreqular- 1y-ahaped pa.rce~ of land conRisting of approx~mately 5.Q8 acres h~ving a frur~tage of appror.inately 417 feet on the n~rthwest sidc o~ Katella AvenuQ anc] Y~aving a frontage of apprcximately 273 f.'eat on the southweat si.de of HUwell Stxe~et, t~avinq a maximum depth o£ approximately 42S feet. Pxoperty presr~xtly r•laesifiad M-1, I,IGHT INDUSTRIAI~, ZC~NE. Chairman Gauer noted that sL•aff had re~commended that subjoct ~etition be with- drawn, in or.der that the property cot~ld be readvertise~l undar a condikional u~o permit, si.nce the M-1 Zone permitted said urse subject ta the approval o` a condi~ione.l use permit. Mr. Harry Knisely, attArne~y re,presenting the petitionsre, 3dviaed t2:e Planninq Commiasion that Che petikioner concuzr~d in the withdrawal, e~nd thnt they would suhmit a conditional uae pe.rmit request £or the same use. Cummiseioner ~'~aymour affared a mcti.on, seconded by Commissionez Kiag, MoTI~~N CARRIEU To terminate a]1 procaedings of Varinnca No. 253y, on the b~-Bis that the property and use pro~osed ahould be procea~eed under a conditional ua~ permit. 73-4~9 ~ ~ MINUT~S, C1TY P'LANNINC COMMISSxUN, Augu~wt' ~0, 1W73 73-460 RECLASSIFICATION- CONTiNU~D PUBLIC HEAR7NG. JAMR ~ A~ ANA ~~RI~NA OI,~ON, ANU N0. 7Z-73-46 J08~9H 1-ND BETTE K. DAVID30N, 414 North StA~~ Collage Bou~av~rd, Anaheim, Ca• ~ZeU6, Own~ozAi Jams• Olson, 87S CONDITTONAI~ UsL Sauth Hilda street, J~nahc+im, Cn. 92806, 'qenti nrdpezcy PERMI'C NO. 1398 c~~naa~:ibed an, A rectongulArly-e~hApmd pa. o~il. of lanc9 locat~r] aC th~ eouthweet c:orngr ot ,tnte f:oll+~q~ 1~~ ul.eve~rr.1 ~nd 3avoy Avenue coneiating of approxi.ma~t~al.q .25 sore, haviny "rontaqer o~ ap~reximatoly 1.27 foet ~n thu v+eot sid~, c~F Stnte College eout~vt-rd and 84 leet on the soiath ni3o af 3av-~y Ave~nue. Prop~rty praeently cl.asailied R-1, ONE FAM7.LY RESI1?ENTTAt~, ZONE. REQU~S'TED CLASSIFYCATIONs C-0~ COMMERCTAL OFFICF, 'LONT; REQ~)ESTLD COND?TIO:iAI. U&Et ES'CABLISH A COMMERCIAI, pFFICE CQMPLk~X IN 'PWQ SiNGLF FAMILY STRi)CTUXES, WATV2NG (A? TYPES OF SIGN$ PERMZTTFD, (a) MIN'ft~lUM SIT~' AREA, (C) REQUIRED SETBACK AREA AJ~OtJG SIS'E BOUNUARY LIN~ N4T A TTXNG A STRE.ET OR H~CNW.AY, AND (D) MAXTMUM BUIL~ING H1EIGkIT WITHIN 3Q0 FEET OF A SINGLF FAMIL'Y FiF,BILENCE . Sub;}ect petit.ione we~re conti.rtuc+d £rom the meeti.ngs o~ June 25, 1973 to readvar- tiee l-rea Ac+ti~lopment Plen Nn. 98, and Ju].y ?.3, 1973 fcr addi.tianel exhibite for Area Devolopment Plen No. 98, and at the request of the petitionere. Zoiiing Supervisor Charlea Robcrts rmvi.ewed the location oP aub~ect property, ua~s establishec3 in close proximity, and tho rQqueat for C-0 ~oning with a conditiona). uso pe~rmit ta e~tablieh a commorcial-offic~ camplex in t~ro ainq'~- familX rc~sidenr.es .reque~-ting four wF-ivere. Mr. Robeita then reviawed previous action by the Commisaion an a~i'v)~ct petitiona, and the action taken by ttte Commi~aion on Aroa Dovelopment Plan N~. 9t! in tha adoption o£ Exh~.blt "F" pra~oeing c~ntinuAd re~iden~tial us~ of. sub~er.t pxuporty, in nddition to the other prope~tios to the aouth. Mr. Roberts also rev~ewed the prupnsa~. by the pet~tianera noting that a c~n:~i- tional uae permit was necessary becauee there was lesa than the xc~quixpd 20,1~00 squar~ feet in the two lots~ that Qxterioz modificatiana to thP axieting struc- turos was propoaed inclu,~ing remodeling the faaadei that tha exigi:ing gnr.age would bs remove~l~ and that 12 oEf-eCreet park~nq spacer to the rear oP *.t~c sitQ were proposed taking access fram a 20-foor. wide al.ley at tkta westorly end o£ the ~roper.ty. Mx. Roberts iz~ conclusion noted that the Commi.saic~n had expresaed fur.ttiex cori- cern that the existing etraet alignment of S3voy Avenue and Sta¢e C~.il.age ~lvd., wou~d present hazardeue tra£fic condi.;.iona from commErcial txaffic entering subject pzoperty througii a residontial atzeet. Mr. Joe Davidson. one of the petition9rs, a~peared beforo the~ Commission and noted that on the east gide of State Co'llege Boulevar~i from South Str.eet north to La Palr.-a Avenue not one einql.e~ fanily homQ ~:a~nained - ai~ had been co~verted to commervial uac+ - a distanee ot one miles that on the w~src aid:. of °ta.te Colleg Boulevard from So~.1th StraQ~ to Lr~ Palma Avenue 85~ of the hr.meA had bcsc~tt canvert- ed to commerc3aJ. uEeu, thua it would appear that the i.ntent; of the City lt~d been to commarc~alizU L•he lrontaqe along State College noulevardr that base~i upcn. khese facts, aince they had researched this, t,hey w~re, tt~erefora~, re~uesting t:~e eame k~nd o! consideratior. that other pXOpert,y ownerr~ along State Collegv Boulevard Y~ad been ~.~for~led= that he propoaed a real e~ntate uf~ice in additian to an insurance ofPice whiah he felt would not adversely affeat the nd;c+iiiin~ pzopextie~ or tha surroundinq community, becauae the area already ha~ eo thar- ot~gl~ly comm~rcialir.ed, i~ would appear logiaal to retone the re~aaining h~anea foz commeraial ueei that the prob].em nt the intersectian of Savoy Avenue end State College Houlevard had been there for aome time, aad would remain a problem until the City a+ade an Att~mpt ta resalve its thst ths propoeal in sn exhibit when Area Dev~lopmenL 'Plan Nn. 98 wa~ coneidered regarding providing block walla in the front setba~k would give the appeardncg o~ a penal ins~itu~ion, and very few people would be enaouraged to take that type o~ action ~eoause of the expense indol~ved in orc~er io rociuce the no3ee, odor, and 8ust from etreet traffict that the cla~m that with th• com~+Iotion af the Oranqe Freeway the amount of traffic would be reducad so much thi+t t1~e~re would be no neceasity of aonverting the homes ~ far co:nmercia2. use, but aae hac~ anly to ].oak at other ~streete in Anaheica Which ~ ~ ~~ MINiITE~, CxTY r14:'.Nr1x~iC. Cr"MT9^Y~*1, AUGUt,T 2~, 1973 73-461 R1~CLASSIFICATION N0. 72-73-4Ei nnd CONDIPIONAL USE PERMTT NO~ . 1398 (conk'd) pa~allel grroewaye wherein the txa~t~i,c ~:aunt Nae r~th~r larqe ln thc~~o azaaa, Ancl tt~o kind u~ trs~ffic t:hxt aould be removed. woul~t bo tihu truak tral4lc, bat tho au~amob~le traftio cou14 ~ti~].l bo i.n tho ne~qhborhoad ot 25,000 vehieJ~e+~it Anc~ ~hst ha~ wae baoinq h~s entir.a arg~msnk or~ ~he ~aUt *.hsk on botih oida~ of fiteto t:oilege euulaverll the n~e~jax port.ion of tho proportl~o hMd been ~onvexted tc~ commf~xal.al u~e~. Mx. pmvf.c9ncn thnn atati~3 th~t if it w~s within their tinanoial abil~ity to provide ~ a~ld:tior~al prntection !or tha~ hnmea r•o the weet ~hey wou1Q be qind ta da eo, in orclez. that thnae raeidanta c~ulc9 ba is~urdd oP maintaininq the roridQnttal anvi.ronme~n~ Kt-ioh they pr~sant:.y liad~ h~wavor, ha did not fo~l it v-aa s~zemeture r~quest, ainc~a with thm grev~.aur aor,ing a~o~ions by the City, ir Mould appesx the aity '~ad the iCiaa o! aetablirhing S'.er~ Col.legc+ Bouleverd a~ a aoma-exa.i.~l at•rdet. Mlr. George Roch:ar.d, 7US Tiover Street, appaez~d befere the Commi~~ion in oppoai- tiun and noCed that as one drave dlc~wn SCate Calleqo Boulevard eou~h a~f Ball RoaB towAa-d Wagna.r ~-veiiue thore wnri e very lnrgH apaztmsnt - oondam~.n.'lam complex unda~r. connt.ruct~ion, whila anothor very lax~ge camplex had ba~n oona~ru..~ed et Ramne~a Dr~ve and 3tate C~lloqe Hculevdrd wh~.:h wauld be inllicative th•nt the city tliouqht~ ~he ar~g ~~+~s con8ucivo to raqic"entinl uae, ~::herwiea the reF~iclantial :aninq would not have beer appr.ovedt khnt he wae a~ware of the f+~ct tha~ thero had been r.ommercidt develonmeat along bot1~ eidos oE State Colluge P,aulavardo but fr.~m savoy Av~nue ~outh it wes p~imarily reaiden~•.ial in chxraa~er, thus i.t would app~ar *.hat thi.s wou.ld be the stre+et to be used as the b~undary l~ne bAtwefln c~mm~rcia.l. and reai.dential usesz that at the last public hearinq ~~n Are~ ^~~e~op- ment Plun No. ~E1, the Commiaeion expres~ed tho opinion that to r-~pprovo ;coning in this blc~ak wuul3 be "epot s.~ninq" ~~that althouqh the patition~ir miqht be eaL-ablieh~.ng 1i~,~ht aommQrcia~l us~~ in these bui.ldir.~e they war.e not that tv911 constructr~d t~o r.onei~lez thc~m f~r ~ommercial 47ses indefinitely, ~«~1 wh~n nc~ exieting buildiG~.ge were removod, n lga~ than des:i.rable uee could be eatablieh~d maki.ng t.he zaning incom~-atible with tha ad~joinin~ xeaidential i~sea~ that at the lest puh.lic hear~ ng thQ oppoc+i.ti.on had eub~-itted a~etition fr:,m ~ reeiden*. and a property ownez' in the r.amaining homes in thi~ black br±rween Snvoy 1~veaue end Sautl: Stree~t incll~~atfng they gref.erred that the homeu be ret~lned for reai.dentlal purposes> >_lzat ~he two streets that wuuld b~ used to gain accese to theae lote wou].d be resi.denti.a7. in chazactes, and thi~ woul~ in~ect comrnerc~al traffic ontu .reaidFnti,~-l, strnets. Tg~ere!'ere, the xes.ic~ente to Che west cf subject property wera desiroue ~f retaininq th~ reaid~ntial chaxacter of tha area in order to pr.otect the c.hil~ren who hm~ to r.ro~e St.ate Col~ego Bouleva.rd to qo to high school~ that it took foar yeare of perauaeian bEforQ the t•raffic aignAl at South Street and State College Soulesvard had been con$tiructed~ and thut he woulcl lik~ to sae that no aomma'rcir~l user~ were pezmitted in order th ~t the U,enefi:. which the li.gtat had ~31ven to the chlldren w~~ not nullified. 7,hua he would urqe the CAmmisaian to rete-in tho area under consideration for si~.qle family r~sidential usos. Mrs. Mary F.tta h'Qyanci, 190~ Dovex Plsce, appeared befar~r~ the Commiasion in apposition ai-d noted t:~at on S~ate College Boulevard t),era already were ten real estaLe officas, and if the Gommission had viewod •.:he ~evelopment on the street one cau~d e~ee~ that ali af the ».ses had bsen es'.abliahed in converted tiomes whirh looked like made over hames, which did na: ad~l to the beauty ~r ~he value of thd adjoininq ~,ropeztiQS, and then gave for axample th~s home at the northeast corner af ~:aec and ~~ermont ~txQe~ca which h..d a.t first been converted to a real estate offi~:e~ WA9 vacant for a while and naw was ~ccupied by a chir~practort that there ware many commercial k~uildi.nqs a~lo;iq 9~ate Colleqe Soulevard that were e~mp~y which oould serve the petitioner ae wellt and th~tti ttae homes i.n th~ aA~oining trn~t were bc~tter khan tY~e a.veraqe buil~ trac~ hom~e, and the intent of the owr.ere was tu maintain them ras residenceu. Mx. Da'videonr in rebuttal, srated thAt Mr. Rochfo~:d's statement ~;i~~at 5avoy t Avenue ahould b~e the atopping point for commArcial uaes, however, thore bes d service station to tha e~uth acrosa thP etreet, Mhile ~ restauraut and e grocery store were in o~exatlon on tY.e weat side af Statr~ Colleqe 13uulevaxd aouth of South Stree~s thnt fur.thetc mentioa reqaxding tha condominiums alonq State Col~eqe Boulevard was not relsva-nt t~o einqle family reeidential usess thnt it pas intmr- ~sting tc+ note ~hat i.~ cna t~ttemp~~d to obtain a- loatr, in the puscha~e o~ o•Zg Af thuee homea foz res~.dentinl purponee it would be next to impoasible thru regulnr ~ ~ ~ MINUmES, CITX PLANNING COMMY88TON, AUqUSx ~Q, 197:3 73^•482 RECLASSIFICA~ION NO. 72-7_ 3-46 and CO,,,,, NDI'.~InNA~ IiST. 'P~RMIT N0. 1'~,9H ( cant.' d) londinq irestitutiGn~, and on~y thru u privat4 individudl wauld. lAane be ma,d~, becauod lending inetittitionr~ baliovod thos~ :~omas °~ooated o:~ a bu~y stzeQt - would be p~tent~al commaraial u~e~ tI~at Akatoniant~a mc+de thst thare wear~ aam~ pouple who ~rxnt~d to livo in theso hamoa on St~Ce Co]aaqe Hoc.l,evacd, he would like to point oiit thAh thel.x renterr in the two hqman under ~:anoi~i~ration .~Ar C-O use a~myed 3-4 montt~~ rncl moved ~ut beoause~ of ~ha exiatinq kr~~!'!ic a~nd notoe problemt and thnt th~y haA a coneidaznbla turnoaQr in ter.ants. Tn a<ldi- tion, an importent thirig ta consider wae the eafo~y of th~e ~ahildren, and ha+ telt theC tho prnpoeed uer~ o~ r3ub~ect prQperty wnuld be le~+s danqeroud t~ the children than eny type of uea, end thin Atemmec3 ~z~am hi~ ey.~arian~cee ~e r xe+sa. eatste budineaenie~n locatc:d on Staha Cvllegs 13ot~lev,nr~ !or °che~ pa~t ].0 yQaze~ thst the e~akement mQAt~ thdt ht~lt` of th~ comme~r.cial :~u~inos~ fAaili.ti+ef~ an State Colleye Aoule'vard wore vaaant wa+~ i~o~ true, althnugh h• had tw~ ~rogerti,e$ on thc •tr~ec~t he wa~ trying ta n9il~ becaus~«a khe ownex wa~~ unabl~ to aonduat his own bu~iness on tha pxopertyt tl~ak Cheir pxrpoasl wou].d noC ~.ook like a maftm over home since he did not Nlan to i.nveAt the kina ot mar~ey ranovalian oi the praperty would take i.f he dld noe intend ro o[:vupy the e~crucr.ure becaua~a i:hA~ had purchaoed tho ~toperty for a part~aular ~,~~, ~and they wUUl~S continuA to er~denvor to make khi~ what ~he,y oriqina~lly propoaed - a raa~l ee*ate end ins~ur- s-nae oPfice~ e~n~ tha~ coa~m~raial uaea along Str~~e ~olle~e Haulever~l hnd not a~fected tho R-1 propertiea to the rear of the~n, esince al]. thege proper~iea we.r.e ~he same as they were 10 y~ars a~Jo ~snd the ~ eople d~i].] ~n~oyed livinq theret and that this Qarticular carnar ehould b~~ l.ooked upan ia o~her pr~perty in this area because i~ ~el~. in: o the same catog~~ry. THE HEARTNG WAS CLQSED. Chairman Gauer nuted *hat tl~~ ~~ ~anninci Commission hec. conal~erad Area nevfl.lop- ment Plnn No. 98 at the Aug~ist_ E,, 197_~. m~,~ting even '~houqh the Commisaion was aware af the fact th~at the pet--tioners af subjact pokitions would npt be ~resont, it was nat donP ~urre~tious]~ that•. L•he Commi.saion had haard a numbar of person~ at the heax.ing t.his d~te wh.~ ~er~ ~,lso nrPSent at the Kugust 6 mec~tiny~ and that the pe~itioner had presen~ ~i~s Gid.~ :.E the azgument. Hawevor, he would like to have the traffic engii ~nl~~~hte,n fhe Commisai~n and interentQd parsons regarding hl.s study af t -~~i. TraPfia Engi.ne~r. F.d Gra =~.' :.a~d tt~~ Commiaeion that perhape the Repork to the Commission ha3 nat , •µ,entec~ the pointa of concern raSarding the decrease ir. traffir. ti~-• . ige Freeway was completed, but the traffic pnttern change c.ou7.d •, to Orangethorpe Avenue wherein the traffic ht~c~ decreased considerai, ~ening of the Rlveraide Freewayj that it wae pos- aible tihat the tra£ ~ ~.ncrease but it would be primarily local~type t,-~ffic not transie~~•. • .~~{s preaently on tha etreet~ thaL• the suqgestions made as to Savoy A~•,, `_cs relationship to SoUth Street for hoth north and south bound tr-~f ~ ~1 ~9 mean there would re two very substandard left turn Qockete prov~ae ~ + ;: staff felt that if commercixl us~e were approved fo~ those luts frun~ ~~ • ce Ccl.lege 23oule.vaxd, that it ~a~uld he tnore logica]. to close Sav4y Avenu.. M-!~ .::>> then would provide bettier traffic flow for the area. Commigaioner Rowlan.~ 7.ire~d wt :~her he unclersto~d Mr. Granzow cori~ctly thtat under any ci.rcum;cr_a~ •:e ~hether or not the land use pattern for subject property was chanqed that i., ::i future any left turn pocketa into Savoy Avenue abould be prohiblfied reqard~e~~ ~ecauae of the alignment and anqle of. trie atreet with State Colinge Bou: var3 and ~he known alignment of South Street which gave problems ~.hat coul~ ::. t be overcome. Mr. Granxow cancurr~ d with Coma-iesi.oner Rowlan~9's nas~umption and furtb~er atutnd tl~at if de~~Nl.opnent increased on 3outh Street becauoe of tho Qarksite - 5 Covee Perk and thc overcrod~ainq of the Oranqe Freeway, ~his would encournqe moro l.e~t ttxrns for south Street than for Savoy Avenue. Commisaioner Harbat notod tliat he ha~d continuously ~pposed commerciel d~svelop- meaet in this azea, snd he had not eeen any change in the urea from that when the Commiss~on had previoualy denied eubject petitiona, e~en though the pati- tioner hafl eubmitted revisad plans, the uae wae etill the eame~ that ia ordar to discourmge commercial tra!!ia entaring 5avoyAvenu~~ it would require hlocking w.~ • ~ N,INUTF+9 r('.I'PY PLANNING Ct~MM289I0N, Aug~et 20, 1973 73-463 RL .LA897FICATION NA. 72^73-46 actd COND'lTIONA~, USE PERMIT NO„ 1~98 (cor~t'd at! t~hA etre~t whiah eauld a~~loce. hoa other ue0a in the rea:ld~ntial ar~a- vrould Qev~lopr that hA aould not aanridar lavorably r~soning one or twa p~ros:~ Mith~ aut consi.fiarinh t:he etfiectn this oauld havs ~n Cho other pn:roe~l~, •t-d th~-t l~nd a~~ombiy woulcA be the only anrwar it •tha Commi.e~~l~or~ conritla;re~l ooma~eroiAl use !or thiA ar~a do appropri.ate. r_omminsianer seymour observed tihat therw was na !loub~ that ~the~ Camm~ael.on h~d given a tnir acid in~~ar~.ial heering to both eides ot ~he isauq~ the~t 5 or b exhibita hdd been pruesntad to the Commis~nian ~or aonelUera+ki.o~~ at Y.h. laet pul~l,ic hearing on the urea devalo~iment ple~n, and at tho lao~r. haaring he hed a!ler~d tho reeolution Co adop~ Exhibit "F" tc~z Area Dev~loj~ment Pla~n No. 99 whurein the ueos ahauld remain A~ th~y prasently exiated wit:h tha addAd sound- at~enuetian deviae~ preaentod to msintain tho reoidantiai inL•egrity~ tha~ Mr. arnn~ow thle date had atated there migh t be an increast~ in Lha PuL•ure ot treffl.c on Stata Colleere Bouleverd dven with the Orange ~ree~wsy bainq aompleted and op0n, but that would be iri tbe future, ~and perhape then it would be a diff- ~r4nt oituation~ and tY~et although Mr. Davidson etateA the eound-attanuatian clevic~s~ propoaed in th4 ndaptecl exhibit would give the ~ppearanae of panal instituCion, it waa sti.ll ne+ceedary ta provido tt~e ~srotaction !or the living onvironment for theae ~omee, ancl this aould be eeen '.n mxny ~other aitieA whiah had re~nic3ential homes adjacont ta major arteri.el~. Commiessiuner Harbst offered a motl,un, seconAed bg Gommissioner Allr~d, an8 MOTION C1~RRYEO, that the Plr~nning Commiasion, in connc~atian with an Exemp~ion Declaration ahA*us sequest, flnde and dAterminea that the pro,posal •~roul.d have no eignificant environmental impdat, and therefore, recommend~ to the City Council that no Environmantal lmpact StAt~ment ie necet~aary. Commieaioner Herbat offered Rego3utiorirto. PC73-177, and maved for ite pasaaqs and adoption to dieappx~va Petition for Recleesificati.on No. 772-73-46 on the ba~ie that th9 C~mmisaion had adopted F.xhibit "F" for Area Dev~~lopment Pla~n No. 98 which pr~vided eound~attenuatiun devices to prot~ec*_ the exiating homea and to rotain said homesi that al.tihouqh the pe~titionez indicated the traffic elony State College Boulevard made it imposaibla to ut±lize theeio propc+sties for zesidential purpoaea, gvidence waa pzesontc~d Chat when thn Oranqe Free,way, prasently under conetrur,tion, was complete~l conaiderable traffic would be reroutecl from state Colleqe Boulevard to the Orang~a Fxeeway. ther.eby er~hancing the residential use of the pr.opertytand that the proposed realassificdti.on of subject property was too prematuce to cQnaider Purth~er etrip commercial uses alonq State College Boulevard, 'aut if at a later dato, the trxf~ic: volume along State College Boulevard increa3ed to the point that the property was undesirable for rASideatial use, a zone chanqe xequest could ba recansidered. Furthermore, that said disnpproval be recommenc3ed to tho Ctty Council.(S~e Ytesodution Boak) On zoll call thF fdregoinq resolution wae paese~ by ~he followinq vate: AYES: COM-;iSSIONERS: Allred, Farat~o, Gauer, Herbst, King, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: ::OMt4TSSI0NERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissionar Seymour offered Re~olut~on No. PC73-178, an@ moved for it.s passage and adoption to deny Petitl.on for Con8ltional Use Permit N0, 1398 on the haeis that the Commiesion had recommen~ed diaapprovsZ of the reclaseifice-tia» af liub~ect pr~perty and the r9quected c~nditional uee coulA not be exercised within tho requiremente of the exiatinq zon:.ng on sub~act propertgJ that aommexcial usea at thia inter~ection would preaent extremely hazar.doue traffic condit~.ons at SAVOy Avenue nnd Sta~~~ College Haulevard~ and that Area D~velapment Plan No. 98, Exhibit "F" dapicting sound-attenuation de~icQa that may be u~rod to rota,ir, the residential ~n~egrity of these homea was r~ecommen3ad for apprava~l by the Planninc~ Commiesion on August 6, 1973. (see Resolution Ha~k) An roll ca.Ll the forogoinq resolution was aassed by the fnllowinq vote: AYESi COMMISSI~NERS: Allxedr Farano, G~auex, Harhet, King, RQWlAAd~ S~eymaur. NOE5i COMMISSIONERSs None. ABSENTs CQMHISS70NERS: hone. • ~ MSNUTE£i, C7[TX PLANt~ING COMMISSION, 11uqu~t 20, 1973 73-49~ ~1R1~1- DEVELOPMENT - COI~TINU~D PUBLIC HISARZNG. INITxATED BY TH~ ANANF.IM CI7CY PI.I1N NO. 17.3 PLAt~NiNC COMM28S~ON, 2A4 Ba~t I.incoln AWanue, ~n ~n~,si~er s~condary +~cass~ solueion !or p.roparties loaeted on the nozth sidm r! Linaoln Av~nu~, lti5 Eeat east o! 8tat~ College Bou].~c~varA extsnQinq oapterly dpproximat~ly 1000 loet R8CLA08EFICATION - CONTINU&D P08LIC l1LARTNG. hLH~R'~ R. HRADLEIC, 1Z~83 l~i~ld- ~Q. ~~•.~q~Z etone Dri.vOr ~~nta AnA, Ca. 92705, Owner~ proparty d~sorib~c! ~' ae: An irzogulerly-ah~pad p+~rcel oi land hav~nq a frontag~ t~QNDITIONAL U9E of approximutol}• S8 leet on the norkt- aide ofi J.incoln Av~nue, P$RMIT MO. 14t2 havi.nq a~ maximum dopth ct approximately 203 tset, end being ' looated approxima~tely 1(~^0 teet eaet oE the centqrli.ns a! St:ete Collage Boulevaxd. Propsrty presenkly c1aAS!.Pi~d R-1• ONF~FAMILX RESIUENT7AL, ZONE. REQUESTEV CLA$3IFICATION: C-O~ COMMERCIAL OFFIC~+, ZONE AEQI)EST~D CONAITIONAL USEs ESTABLISH A COI+lMERGIAL JFF7C~ IN AN EXISTING ~IFIGLE.-FAMII~Y RESIDENCC, WAIVING (A) MINIMUM LOT AREA~ (B) FlxNTF1UM SIDE YARD SETSACK, (C) MAXIMVM PERMITTEA H~IGHT, AN'J (D) ~tEQUIRED l4ASONRY WALL ABUTTING A ItE87l7ENT~AL ~ONE. Subject ar.es development pian waa cnntinued lrom the Auquet 6, 1973 meeting ta a11ow time fnr the prepararion of other alternAti.vee, and sub~ect petitione were continue+d Prom the meating of July 9, 1973 for the preparation aiid advertis~nq o! an arera urea developm9nt plar., and from tha Auyuut 6, 1973 meetiny for the prepnration of other al~.ernativea. Associate Plar~ner E. Ron Contzere~a ~resented the repoit on Azea De+~elopment ~la-n No. 113 noting tliat the exhibit preseatdd previously was posted on the eaet wnll of the Council Chember~ that the atu~ly area comprised of 18 lots ~rontin~ on East Lincola Avenue - 2015 thx~ugh 2233 Ra~t Li.ncaln Avenue - with 7 0~ t ~.ote located west of Olana Way and lI lots locat:ed eaot of Oldna Weyi that ~..~-se were all residential late which hed garages at *.he rear havinq access to the alley to tne north or to Oland Wr~y fur thase homes adjacent to said streett ttiat Exhibit "A" ~projeoted wideninq the exi~ting 20-foot wide alley ta 25 feet iii orclzr to accommodate two-way traffic, e'_nce the traffic engineer felt thia additional riqht-af-way would ba more deeirable from the standpcant of two-waY circulatian, howeve.r, it might not be practical to ob±ain this addi.tional right-of-way where commera~.~l devolnpment had occurrecl or wh~are the tra~;h snclosure azeas had baan huilt on the property line as Fiad some of the~ 2-car qarages; ancl that poMer polea wore locnt~d along t,he :aouth eidcs of the alley adjacent to aubjer.t properties. N~r. Contreraa then reviewed th~ aiternatives, natinq that the traffic enqinaer was af tihe opinian that it r~ou~d be more desirab].e to havH traffic entering a primary hiqhtaay from another pub~ic street instead from an all.eyt th~t the traffic enqineer also fel.t tliat davalopment of subjACt pr^terties would not generate that much veh~cular traffic and it wae 11ke].y tr,at customers would be parking alonq Lincoln Avenue, and the off-atreet parkinq would undoubtedly be uLilized by tl:e employeeat that it had been the traffia engineer's experi~enae thdt where an alley hed accesa diractly onto a primary highway, and where curh par~Cinq was permi.tted~ the local buslneases began requsgtinq "no pnrking" -~iqns due L•o a la~k ~f visibility for vehicles attempting to exit onto a primary highwayi that fn further di3cusaiana with the traf~ic enqineer he hsd reixer~teQ the lact that no adclitional eeccndary accesa to Lincoln Avenue should bo ~rovici- ed nor shoul~ Olana Way b~e blocked or ~he alleys tolocked to restrict vehicular traffic lrom Qxiting onto Ward Terrace~ that AR'~~itlAtBd traffir, f.rom the 15 lotn if ~ot+~lly davAloped for commercial~office uee~ would generete approximately 135 tripe per day based upon +s» avoraqe of 3 employea~ per ;.o~ by 3 tripe per day tor the 1S lots~ that theae tripa woul~ be mt~dr~ primarily during the morning, lunch, and after work hour~, in centrast, it wd~ determined ~that 14 ].ote fronting an Ward Terrace would gen~rate approximatoly 140 tripa per dayt that the Sani- tatton Departmant, who were ra8ponoible !or ~.neuzing Chat there was adequate circulation for t:aeh pickup, indicated that it the alleys were blocked off at Wa~d Texrace, tne tiraeh trucks would be unable to provide trash p3ckup ~rom tihs alley, necessitating trash pickup alor-g Lincoln Avenue and ~4ard Terrac~~ and that in conclueion tha tra!!io enqinder would prefer to have al.ley aooes• Prom Olana W~y and Ward Terrace only/, a~nd it wauld probably be uanecee+~ary to h~av ~dditiorsa3 alley aocasg lrom Linaoln 7-venn• to serve thoae propectiaw b~twoen OYana Way and PAradiae Lano~ aad tt~at thm ~anitation Departm~nt al~o lavormd keeping the alley opea !oz bst~xr oircula~tian And efficient trASh pickup. ~ ~ ~ MINUTtB~ CITY PLIINNINr C01rfMCT8SI0~1, Augu/t ZUr 1a~:i 73~485 AR~A q1C'V1+Y+OpM1~N1T PLl1td NA, ll:~r R~Ct.H$SIFTCATI6N I~10. 73-7~~2 dnd CQNDxTIC~t~AL U 6!! P~ RM I T W Uw !~ 2 _ _-----____..,.~.,., --.... ,- One per~on iriAlaat~A thst he Nab in lavor of the prop~aa7. •~ nriqinell~r sub- mittsd by ata!!, and tha~ he wd~ th~ petitioner a! the two oth~r po~itlant. Chairm~n O~~Mar ~zoted t~hat or~s of ~ha reaeone for requ~e~tinq sts!! t~ px'~pAi• an ax~s d~v~el~opmont plsn war to ~p,otAat thd reeidential propertier tu the no,rth adiecant Cn tha alley, parti~~ul~rly 'inoe theix~ garayas had a~aa~ua Lo rai6 alley. TH8 HEAkiN(; W113 CL0~3ED. Chairman GAUar inqui,xed whether thoxo wera any ra~ident• preaenk aho livod on Ward Terz+~o• and rac:miveci no res~an~+e~ wheraupon Zaning Supeacvisoz ~hgxlea Rabsrtu advieed the Commisaior- that accurding to t'ne maili.nq liQt tt~eee re~i•• dontn had been notitiAd of the publia haaring. Commiseianer HerbeC requeAted thac TraPfic EnQin~eer Ed Granzow explain hie vieNpoint• on this proQoaal ae ft pert~ine~t to the amount ot tra~rPio that aoulA exi~ ta Ward Terraae Prom thia commerainl davelopment in the atudy ~r.ea. Mx. Granzow advi.oe~d the Commiseion t,hat his pereonal apinion roqerd~.ng Che the atudy area, if he live3 un Ward 'Terraoe, Y,e would welcome thie type of neighbor becaus~s o! the number af peop~e who w~~uld occupy one oonver.ted hamet thmt employees of commexcial ueee thet migh t oc~cupy these Paailitiea wou)a pxoba~bly pro~oct only three t.ripe per day - nrrivi.ng in the morning• yaing to lunch end returninq, end leaving at ni.ght, w~.th tha pr~epect r~:: cuetamer.s parking alonq Lincoln Avanue, and from 5 p.m, to ~.ha L'ollowing m~:_^.inq at 8 a.m. the.r.e would be no qenerati.on of traffic, co~~paxinq thi~ with the single lamily reeidenta who would gen~ere-ta 6-8 trips per day~ that if, a$ auqqestefl, Olana Wa~y were closed to Lincain ,Avenue this would a~ean creatinq indivi.dusl driveg exiting to I,ineoln Avenue thereby eata~b2.ishin~~ trsffic canflicta, e-:d this was the baeic reason for sugqesti.nq wideairtg the all.ey to qive em~loXeee a bettAr chance to entor theso pxrkinq areae from ~the ~lley~ that traeh pickup would then b~ off the alleyt that there would be lede tr~f.fi~ qenexated from tho propoeed types of uese than woulc~ bo generated by the singl~, family homes to the north, and would discaurage el?Ay parkingt and l•ha~t perhaps thie wou].d eseate a better environment. Cammieeioner Herbat observed that thess a~sump+~~.on~s were probablX correct, but theee properti~s were also ideal fox land aseembly nnd x very viable develop- a~cnt for C-0 usas coul~i bQ planned aad constructed~ whareupo~~ Fir. Granzow ~tated ~hat at euch time as land asaembly took place, the dev;3loper$ would request accese ko L~ncoln Avenu~, but he was primarily concerned at thip time tliat accese would he proDoaed fox edch 3ndividaa~. lot. Commisaiuner Hezbst then inquired whether dedication of alley ac~:ees r.ighte would be r6quired if ~these parcels were aeseml+led ~nd developed ~•~r C-0 uses~ whereupon Mr. Granzow stated that if aevernl parcels could be aesemb~.ed, ~hen he woul~ pre~er that aacebs be from Lincoln Avenue rather ~than i:he alley. Commlaeionez Herbet expreseed conoern that there would be consider~ab.l~ tret~ic from the commoreial uses using Ward Terra-ce, a reai3~ntial etreett whoreupon Mr. 3ranzow advised the Cummiseion that War~l Texrace wae rather d3~iiault to gain dirsct acoesa to arterials, therefora, he fel~ that commsrcial ~raltic would ba dis.ov.r:lg9d from ueing that stra~t. Commi~+eioner Ftowland inquired Nhere Mr. Granzow abtained t2,m estimnted number of trips p~r day fos eaah of these lote it develope3 with G-O uaear wheret~~on Mr. Grnn~ow e~ated th~t ~he data had b~ean obtained fr~m typical typ~s of d~iv- elop~eent ~hroughout the city, however, if thase reeidencas c~~ere converted far rea2 oetate of~icme thnre wouZd be many more people both emp2oyeee nnd ouetomers. Commieoioner 1-llred obeervad tha*. fros~ recor~a it would a-ppe+ai• that caore ~ha,n half of tl~e homes had obtained G-0 Zoning~ Commi~eionar Herbet inqured if the city hnd any leveraqe in obtainiriq ths addi- tiona2 live feat ot dadication ~or allay wi.doning purpoeea lrom thoea conditiona~ use ~~r~nite whiCh hud already baen apprcved~ aheraupon Mr. Grdnzow etated thdt ib r~ould be di!licult and there would be no way the City could obtain the adQi- t~onal '~ lset !oz eaid alley Wider~ing. ~ ~ ~ Mxt~UTEB, CITY YL~ANNINC COMMI88Tnh, August 20~ 1~7A =~'48~ AR~SA D~VE~+UPMENT PI~AN N0. 113, RECX~#BSYFICATYON N0. ~:1-74-Z, snd CONDITxON71X. U S E P E R M= T N 0~ 1412 ~, ...,.._...._._._. - ----------~- Mr. kob~rCo •dvis~d the Commiasi.on that the or~ly v+Ay +r.hst thi~ d~dication oould h• acquir~d v-ould be upoa re~3~v~].~pment ot the proper~7/, or ~ new applics~:inn wne pxebenteA !or pubiic haa~~ing. Commi~aioner Hexb~t i~nquirsd whet;her ~.t wopld ba aQvieebl• tor ~ha propsr~y ownez~ to improvs th• elley naw rath~r then havl,ng !13!lersnt property kidthsr wher+upon Mr. Rnberte atated the~ he MOtlYd pL'Rt~Y thet ~he olfias aaqi.neor en4war that qu~~tiian, but it would ~ppe+~r lram commwnts mt~de by Mr. Gxanxo~r that it vrould n~t ba deuirat~le to abtsin ~ho ed~iti~nsl S lu~t n~w, Mr. Gran~ow otated that fram a~~rac~ioal rtendpoint, ;~~cauae o! kha utility polo~s outside of tha exieting riqht~^af-wsy, and •~h~ e:Kip~ing traeh ~nclaeurar and garAgea it aould not be in ~he be,~t intareet a! tt~a city to ncquire thi.^ addition+~i 5 feet oY dadicmti~a, bu~ most naw 6eve~laprnent hmd a 2a-Foot wi3• nl.ley w~.th a 5-foot sotbdek, the.reYore, it would be ruther cSifficult ta da anyth~ny et tha preaent. timo. Commiseioner Herbet ~,nquired whether thexa+ was a p~asibility that thie d~adi- cation would avar k~e AcaomFliehed, ei.nae hs did rot want to imp4se a co~nd~~ion if tt wae impraatical~ whe~reu~on Mr. Granzow etn,:ed khek. when land aeoernbly occarzed then th~ dedicatii~n aad al.ley widening would ,be required. Mr. Titua advised the Commiasi~n that a oondition af eppzoval would be a con8ltioaal dodiaation o~ the 5 feat for alley w~.deninct pu~.poees ar~d would be roquixed ~t auch time ae a suffici~ant nixmb~r of p~rcels would be ~vailAblo to make, i.t w~>rthwhile to improve. Mr. ftoberte in reaponse ~o Commiseioner Herbet's r.ummenl•a sta.ted thA.t althongh aevexal of the properties in the atudy area had been de~~~e~oped or w~~re in the process oP being developed, mc-c+t csg them hnd npproved canditional use perrits, a-nd if at semetime in the future several property own~ra wanted to qet toqether to develop ~ commnrcial-office complex, !.t wauld be necesaar.y t.~ have the con~i-~ tional uae permi.ts rescinded bece~uae accoxdinq to the City Attorne~y, eo long ~s the CUPa wexe on tiho property an~ could not be uaed for ~3ny oicher iise even thaugh it was permit4ed in the zone, thue the proparty ownere wc~uld have to rc~~ueet re•rocation of the CUPs to the City Counail. Therefore,i~' th6 Pi.anaing C~mmia9lbn wanted to adopt the recommendationo regarding the area davelopment, a aon~ition of approval could be dttached +~hich would requir.e coredit:l~~nal d~~d.ication of the 5.-foat atrip fox~alley widAning purposes on the northerly propesty linea, as well as dedicar.ion of vehicular ar.ceae right6 ta Linaoln Avanua+ being given to *he City. Cammiseion~r Aa.lred offoxsd Resolution Nc-. PC~3-179, and a,ove~i foz ite passdgd and adoption ~o sdopt and recommend to the Ci~y ~ounail the~ adaptio-~ ~f Exhibit "A" £or Area Uevelupment' F].an No. 11.3, subject to conditiont~] dedication of a 5-foot s~rip of land along ~t-.e northerlv proparty ].3ne cf th+~ ~roperties in the study area for alley widening purposes, and the de8icatiAn a~ vehicul~r accec~s rigritA to T,incoln A~enue b~th beinq ofYereB to r.he City of 1_nehaim. (see Resol~i~iox~ Baok) On roll call th~ foreg:~ing xes~lu~ion wac ~es~ed by t1:e, ~cLlow3.nr~ vote e AYESt COMNISSIONERS: Ailra6, Partt~io, Guuer, Harbat, Y.in~, Ftowland, ~eymour. NOE&: COMMT ~SIOi~ERS: None. ABSRNY': C~MMISS~UNiRSz None. Cnalr~nan Gauer :~oted r,ha~ the G0111xI~83aOh w~+uld cone~ider avidence on the p~tition Eox lteclaaeificati.an tio. 73-74-2i whar~.upon the pc~ti~3~ner, Mx.Albert 9radl.ey, a&psared be~oze the Com~aiasion anii utated he p.tAnned to convert tka residnnce to ~-~0 uees~ thet hi~ pzoperty wae imm~diatsly adjacent to th~ I~ts whic:h wer+e I i,r.dic~tad on the azea map as juti:ng nut inta tha atzesk~ hovre~ar th~ entire ourb sn8 0l,dewal.k appeered ~a be ali~haQ. Mr. '"itu~ a(iv+~aed the Commiseion and Mr. B~~dley tt~at tha ouxb and q~tk~r t~,at wsre ln on thase properfiies wero looa~.~sl on privstd ~zopar~.y. • ~ ~ MZNUT~b , CITY PLANNlNG f;OMMI88TON, Auqu.4 Z0, 1973 73-497 1-REA DEVE~~OPMBNT PLAN N0. ~113, RECLA86iiPTCATION N0. 73-74-2, and CONOITi0N1-L U88 PSRMIT NO . 1412 _ _ _-_ ~...------- -'- Mr. Hrwd~~y noted tha~t the two gr.a~~r~.i~e. eo the aaat ~f hi• property aexe boinq u~ted Eor anqine~ring ~!li~cae ae we-~ one tiom• t~ the Me~t bwinq ueod by trie sams oompany o! wngin~erN ~ that hi~ praper.•ty rras in an srea that wo~Ld ba muoh M~or.• uoef~~l f~r commeralAl o!lico usee thRt eM a r~~identi~l ur+et that he ha~ own~d the prc~arty sinua ~953, prior to the time kheti the •hoppinq center wae builtt that he ha!! n~t llvs d ln the honse !ar 12 yaers, but tenants h• had in ths tiom• ne~var eta,•~d longsr than khreo yeare ~nd eomc+ o~ly three to six monthe~ that his moet rcoont tenant had beon in the homa for 1~ y~+ar~~ that it ao~t him a conriderablo emount o! money eect- time a tenant moved to ranovat~ ~he inrida •nd outsl.de of the homet that th~ roar ydrd tbe lant time he viuitad the prop- ert~- a~penrec~ to bo s lire haasz~9l end tt~at khe roason tor requo~tlnq raala~si- lic~t,l.on o! the, property was thnt At auch ti.me ae thoee proRertiea wara to bA exs~mblod with othisrs ~or n l.axqe commArci~l ofPic complox, end the dll~y wa~ ta be widened ho would a~qree to demulition oE thn qer~g~t that thre~ yeare eqo ha hed n re»dering which groposacY a two-atory o~P~.CA buildinq utili.zing tWo add~tional lota, howevar, he wae unab].e to a~rive at an ngsoemont r+~.ti.h tho other tv~o p,rop~rty oranere . 7'HE HEARING 9iA^ CI~US~p. Curt~~nissioner Y,ing inquired whethex Mr. Hradley h~d u proepact~.ve tanant for ~he commercial. use of t21e propertyr wY~Areugon Mr. Br.adlay Atnted thA't dC the pre- ~ent time he no pro~speative tei~aat for comme.rcial uae af the proparty. Camm=ea~oner Herbat offered x motioi~, ee~onded by Commissi.oner Se~-mo~ir, ~-n3 ~oTION ~ARR7.ED, that t~ ~ Planning Gommi9oion, in connection witti nn Exemption Decleration Status request, finds and dstermineR that *_he propasal would have no :signi£icant envi ronmental impact, and ther~fora, recommende to the Gity Counci!_ that no Environmental. Impnvt StatEment ie necessary. Commissioner Alla~od offerod Resolution No. PC73-180, a~nd moved foY• its paee~nqe ena adoption to racotinmend t~ ~he City Cauncil approval of Petition for Rec] aeei- ficati~n No. 73-74-2 aubject ta condi.tionr, and the findinys ttiat the property would have to be developed and d~dicatian be made for a11ey wideninq ~SUrpoaes~ in acr.ordance with Area Development Plen No. 133, that the petitior~er atipulatod to renoval of the exiet~-q garAge; and that althauqh the. Plnnning Commiesion in the past h~nd requi~ced aonversion of reaidenaes to cummer=oAertiea,~thaseVprop- some form ~~f protection to the adjoining aingle family p I~ erta ss locaked to the nor~h of the exlsting a'lley had access to their garagEs .fi'om the a11ay, and t~ require 'the wall at this ttme wl en the alley ~s only 20 feet wide could create hazarcls. Prior to roll call the Commiasion and etaff d~.scussed 1:he resolutio* of~ere~d, and upon its conclvaivn Mr. RobPxts advised the Commission if they were concarne+ about the appersranco af the extexiQr of the building, a c~ndi.~ion could be a~tL•act~sd tha~ woul d require that pzior ~o the i~itroduction uf an ordinance ~c reolasaify th9 property that spQCific plane for redevelopment of ~he buildinq be aubmittad to and approved by the klanning Commieaion and Ci~y Counci.l. Commissioner Ruwla-n~ nated that thQ Commission recognize~ that this was potentia coanA~arcirl~office use aZ3 therefore waiver of the wail was tochnical but that it development plan~ were submitted perhaps n morp dasir~bl~ 3ev~lopment could be obtained. Commisalones Axlred then amended his resolution to inr.lude that prior to the introduction oFan ordinance reclaeaifying thA prc+perty, precise development ehall be sul:mi~ted ta the Ylannin,q Commiesion and City Counc~l for approval. (See Reaoltstion Book) On roll call the foragoing resolution passed by the followinq vates AYES : COMMYSStONERSt Allred, Faxano~ Gnuer, Herbst, Kinq, Ro~rland, 3eymour. NOES: CQMMI9SIONER~e None. P.HSENT: COMMYS&IONBRS: None. ~ MINpTE9, CITY PLIINNTNG COMMI89ION, ALgu~t Z0~ 1973 ARL11 pLV~LOPMFNT P1,AN U8E PERMIT N0. 1411 _ ~r~.-a~e N0. 113, R~CI,AS~IFICJ-xYON N0. 73-74-2, mntl CONflITI0Nl1L Cornmi~~ion~r Allr~ed ofter~d Reroluti,on ~lo. PG~3-101, +~nd movod Por it• pAO~s9~ ~nd d8aptiun t~ grAnt patii.tian !or Conditional Ua• Permit No. 141x~ ~ubjoot Co oendit.ions and lindinyN that wRiv~rs o! the miriimum ~oC area, mir~in-um s1Q• yard •~tbaak and maximum building hsight 'had baan granted in the padk v~haxe a re~i- dence was pro~o~ed to bo earivert~d !or c ommereial axlica ueen, therofoz~, th~ ~aiver was grsnt~d~ anQ khat nlthnuqh th e Planninq C~mmlesion in the paeC hd• required a 6-lo~~t m~ao~ry wall to prateati •xietinq r~oiclential us~e adjaoant ~o lot^ lronting anto srterisi~ a~nd prc.~oeed f~r oonversion to oammaroial ut~~, since tho adjecent percalh were de~ignat~d !ox commercial uee, it: appa+~rod uni~sco~sary to require tha wali, thar~toro waivor o! i.he roquired me~anry as11 wa^ grfi.~~ted. (See Resolut~an noak) Commieioionar Rowland expreaee~! concern regarding approval a! s ub ject pe~t+ tion baaad on ~.:~e ldc~ that tho peti.tioner did not huve e- epeaific t.Nnant, and uso of hhe property, which was n marqinnl typc homo miyht not bR an aa~+r~t to '_hs aity unle~e avme controle ~r~are+ eatabliwha~], however,, nince a condition oL ap;~roval to require procie~e ~ievalnpment plona be submitte~d to the Commiaslon e.id City Cauncil for approval be~oro r~zoning the property, this migh~ be the one method o! providinq znflre than a maxginel typs uaa. On roll oall the foregoing resolution w ne ~esaed by the following vote: Aygg= COMMIS3SONF.RS: Allrad, Fnrbnc, Gauer, lierbst•, King, Row].and, S9ymour. r)C~LSs COMMI38~ONERS; None. ABSENTs COMMiSSIONE RS: None. RECL,ASSIFICATION - PUHLiC H~ARiNG. SRUCE G. ARMSTRONG & MICHA'.L J. GARAN, t10. 73- 74-13 ~.775 Edst Lincoln Avenua, AndhB~m, Ca. 92805, Owners t Edward F. F~ley, F oley Conatruction Co., 1681 West TEI~TATIVF MAP E' Bruadway, Suite T, Anaheim, Ca. 92802, Agent/Develo~~er~ TRACT NO., 8417 _ propezty described ae~ A rectanqular3.y-ahaped parcei of land conaiating oi epproxi~ately two acre~ having approximate frontaqea of 340 feet on *.he north a~de of V~rmont Avenue and 340 feet on the aouth ol.de of Tyrol Plac~:~ aaving a maxi- mum depth of appr~ximately 223 feet, and bafnq located ap~roximately 310 feQt west of tlle centerline of State Col.lege Boulevard. Property presently clasai- fied R-1, ONE FAMILX RESIDENTIAL, ZONE (PAkCEL 1) ANA lt-3, MULTIPLE-FAMrLY RESIDENTIAL, ZON~ (PARCEL 2)• R~QUESiED CTrASSIFICATTON: RS-5000, ONE-FAMILY, Z~NE. TENTATIVE TRACT ItEQUE5T: ENGINEERs Alpine Ci.vil Engineers, 17612 Beach Bl.vd, , Huntington Beach, Cd. 92647t Fropos~.nq to subd~v.ide gubjact proporty into 12 RS-5000 Zor,ed loCs. No one appeared in opposit;ion. Atthouqh the R~:port t.o the ~ommission was no~ read a~ gublic hearinq, i*. is referrod to and made a pa~:t of ~he Minutes. N.r. Dona~.d 5chaeffer, rbp~:e~ser~L•inq the agei,~ for the petitioner, appeared bcf4re ~the Commission and present.ed renderin gs~f ~he proposed e~ructures, nnting che Eaot that two of the eXevationa ware 4-bedroom homes and two of ti~o e].evationc~ wer~~ 3~bedroom homes, and ther~ stuted thst the engineer of the pra~ect Na~ preaent to answer guastions. ~rhe Commission noted that Tyro1 Place Lo the wec~t was projecte~d for A 30-fcot ha~lf width whexeas only 27 feot existed, and ir-qufred whethex the pet~tionwr would be wil~inq to dedicate the addit~nnal 3 feok in order to comply with che req~uirement, whereupon Mr. Thou,4O Shelton, the en33neer adviaed the Commiea~.on hat thin would raduce ~he rear yarae, but if it was thafi important to tha Cnmmir~.~~n, he waa sure that the developex woul~ 'o stipz~lated to the additiona~l 3 teet. C _J *.~ ~ MZNOTIEB, CITY PL111~NING CpMMI38I0N, Augu~k ~O ~ 15~73 '~j'489 L1188IPIGI-TIQN N0. 73-T4-13,and T8NTl1'CSVE M~P 0~' TR71CT N~~17 ptlioa~ Bngin~~r Jay Titus advl~~d th~ Gon-sis~io~ tli~t ~'ne iat~xd~partmenC~l Cow~- mitt~• h+~d r~oomw~nd~d tt~io Q~diaafiic+n to ~n~ak• !h~ balar~ow o! th• ~~r~~t oon~l~~t- ant, but th~r~ would b• no ~olooatian o:t th~ aurb +~~nd gubt~r, bu~ th~ parkx~y would b~ aon~i~t~nt wi,th th• b~l~nc~ a! th~ p~rkN+~y tia the we~t. THE H~7lRINC WAS CLO&ED. Commis~loneL 8~ymour otfezed a motian, seconc4sd by Co~amisMioner Horb~t, anQ MOTxON C1IRRISD, that the Pla~nnxn,y Gammis~ion, 1n oonnv~otion yith sn ~xer~ption Doo~aration 3tatui reque~t, lind~ R~nd d~tsxmin~~ I:haC Che propaenl would h~ve no ~ipnilicnnt Fnv3ronmental impsct, a~nd ~h~r~ ~Eor~, r~aom~n~nd• to the City Councii that no Bnvironmental impact s~mta~ent is n.~aaerary. Comml,s~ionox 8~ymour o~fersd Reeolution N~ . F'C73-1q7,, mnd mo~ved ~or ika p+~osaqo at-d sdoption to recammond to tlie Gity Counc:i.l uppro~ll o! Petition !or ReolAeAi- tiaation No. 2~-74-13, eubject ta aan9i,tioxis, nnd tha lindin~ khat ttio po~itlc+n~r ~~ipulatecl to dedication of the a~dditi.o~.+~] 3 leet t~.+r str~et widening of Tyrol Plaoe. (8ae Rasol.~~~ion Book) On roll aarl the foxeq~inq reaolution wma ~.~a,saed by t11A lallowing vote: AYES ~ COMMI3SIONERS: Allred, F'arr~no, GauAr, HsrbMt, King, Rowland, S~ymour. NOES: COMMYSSION~RS: N~ne. ABSENT: `.MMISAIONERS; None. Cnmmissinnar Seymoui~ utfered a moti.Gn, second~a ~y Commissinnez Herbet, atn~ MOTION CARRIED to approve Tentative M+~p of xract No. 8417, 0ubject to tlae folloa- ing conditione: (1) That the owner(e) of subject property ehsll deei~. to the City of Anaheim a etrip af ls~nd 30 feet in width tsoca t}~n ccciterliae ~f the street along Tyro'1 Avenue and Txral Pldce l~~x etreet widen- ing pux~oaee . (2) That ~he epproval of Tentative Map o! xraot No. d+17 is qranted aub jact to the approvt-1 of Raclae~ification No. 73-74--13. (3) Thdt ~hould this subdivioion be develol~ed aa moro than ono sub- division, e~.ch subdivi.st.on thoreoz shahl be aukmitted in tenta~ivo ~orm for ap~roti•al. (4) ~h~+t alt iots within ~his tract st~all l~a served by underground utiliti~s. (5) Thnt a final tract A,ap of sub~ect praperty shall be subm•~.tted to and approved by the Cir_y Council and t:hen ~e secordeS in the ofEice of tl~e Ordnge County Recarder. (6) That the ownor(e) of aubject proFerty ah~ll ray to the City of Anaheim appropriate Fa-rk and recxe at ion in-lieu fees as determtned to ba apprnpria~e by the City Counci]., a~aid feea to be paid at the tima tha buildinq ~ertait ie isaued. (7) That drainago of subjeat property s h abl be diapoye3 of in a manner that is satiefactory to tha CitY Enqine~r. VARIANCE - PUHLIC HER1iING. .TO~SpH & ANNE NlO1tRI8, ].9h4 Yiotoria Avenue, Anshefm, NO. 2538 Ca. 9280A, Ownar~ Xequsrting ii71I•VER OF MINIMUM R~,~\R YARD SET~IICK TO CONTZt7UE U8E OF I~N EXISTINa ROOYI ADA~TION on pro~exty ~dscribed a~ s A recte~ngular~y~shaped pare~l a!• lantl Kavi.ny +- 4ronta~e o~' epproxi- mately 63 Peet on ths south ~id~~ o! ViatoriA 1leenue, ha+ving a maxim+am dap:h a! epproxia~a~~ly 100 ~.ot, snd bei ng 1ccA~~:'~~FrO`lase~ifi~d5R~1•sONE•FAMILX the oanteYllne cf Br.o~dview Strsst. Prop+e:~ty p Y R$SIDENTIAL, ZANE. No one appsarAd i.n oppoeition. ]1lthough ths Report to the Commisaion wae r-ot rekd at public '~eAring, ik is r~f~r- xed to xnd made part ~P the minut~s. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, GITY PLP-NNINa COMMI3~IdN , 7luqust 20, 1973 73'~y~ V11Ri11NC~ N0. Z538 (aontiriued) Mr. Jo• Moxri~, tito p~titior-er, appwared b~lor• th• Commir~lon end ~tetad that ho had built ~he patin nvor !iv• ysara aqo, but wsnt ovdrbnard, and 1101V hh~t hM propa~~d to sall the h~m• h~ lound ho Ma~ unabl• to do ~o, antil ~he sddition vr~s leqalis~d. TiiE NE7IRYNC NA8 CL088D. Commi~~3on~x Far~no noxed that th~ adait~on vrae more Chan n patio and appaar~d tn ba u roam •dditiont lurthermore, the City phould advise buildir~c~ ount~ractore that ~he~o addition~ MAZa violatio~• o! the City'~ ordinana~• Ana reqt~ir~m~r~to, and th~y should abtiain the prop~x pmrmtt~, retlisr Chan havir~q th• pruperty ovrner gaao a vaxianae y~etition far apRrava~.. piocu~dion wad ho16 betaean the Commie~ion and Lli~ patition~r regexding tha via- lation now requesCetl to be rectiPi6dt ~hat the Commission Na~ not appoaed eo the r~qu~st eo long ae it met wi~h all the Buildi~~y Cecl~+ YequirementRt thAt it wauZd n~~t be a Qetriment to the Citp, how~vsx, th~s petitioner appesred to have knowinql;- vialatecY ehe Code, ev~n thauqh he contended t,e origi.nall.y planned just a patio,but. ~iecsuoe hiu lar.~il,y had qra~+n he needed the atlditional ~pace, and had enclosed the patio~ a-nd tha-t it would be the obligetion ot the patitianar to meet with tha butl(linq Dit~ioian i.n arder to determine the al~propriats mese~r~+e thet muet be ~aken to establieh this home in oontormancn ~rith thh Cit•~~K ordinancos, oven i! tha City Counai2 took no aation oa the petiti~n, thereby concurrinq with any nc- tion taken by ~he Pla-~ning Commisaion Commiesionor S+~ymour olP~reA a mc~t: ~~n, eeaanded b~ Commi~eioner A11red, and MOTION CAR1tIED thak the Plann~.ng Cummieeion, in connection with nn Exempt~an DAClaratio~a 5tatue reque~at~ finds nnd determines that the propc~snl would have no eigniPl.aa:~t environmen~esl impact, end th9refaxe, recommen~ls to the City Council that no Environmc~ntal Impact Statemant is aecaseary. Commiseion$r S~y-mour offezed Resolution N4. PC73-183, and movAd for iks pn~~-sa_ end adopti~on to qrant Patition for Verinnce N4, 2538, aub~act to the Btru~~turo meetin~ a].l Building Code, etc. requirements o~ the City of Anaheim. (See Resolution Baok) On ro].1 call the forag~ing resolu~ion was passe~9 by tha following vota: AXFSs COMMISSI~NERS: Allred, rarano, Gau~r, Horbet, Kinq, Rowl~nd, S~ymour. NOES e COMMTS&IOi'ERS : Nans . ABS~NTs C~JM,MISBIONERS: Nono. RECLASSIFI~ATION - fUBLIC KEARING. GU1 F. & AD~A ARNETT, 68Q 5outh Knutt Straet, P10. 73-74-12 Anaheim, Ca. 92',04, Ownera~ WILLiAM PHEI,PS, 1095 Nort,h Main ~ street, o range, California 92667, Agentt property described VAFTANC'E N~~. 2544 as: A ractAngualrly-shaped ~axc~l of. land aonaiating of appreximat@ly 2 acres , haviny a~xontage of appraxi~nately ].31 feet on th4 esgt s1.de af Knott StrEet, having a maximum depth of approximately 600 feet, and bei.ng located approximately 700 faet ~outh of the centorline of Orange Ave ~ue. Property preeently class~fied R-A, AGRiCULT~ UAAL, ZONE. kEQUESTED CLASSIFICATION - R-3, MUL'PIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, uONE. REQU~ST~D VARIANCE - WAIVE MINII~UN! DISTANCE BETi7EEN BUILDINGS 'f0 CONSTRUC4~ a 54--UNIT APARTM^NT COMPI.EX. No one appemrad in ~ppQaiGiun. Althouqh the It~port to the Commietsion was not read :st publi.~ h~uzing, i' ~!~ r~lerred to and made part of th e Minutes. Ntr. Williem Phplps, agent for the petitioner- sPpeared bePore the Cummission, and nctmd that tha plans complied wi~h requirements of the Sen~tatlan Divisi.on, an~! lchaf: re~vis..a plana submitted we~re in complianccs with concerne expr~aAed by g~aff. Zona~~y` Supervisor Charles Raberts inquixed whett~er thb submitted reviaed plans ir-diaa~sd tha removal c~f the wallt ~~hereupon Mr. Phelpe replied affirmat~vely. I Mr. Ph~lp:. further noted that lrhe on7.y r~aivor bei~g requeetad wag tor tho entry- vrey, aad daoxs eou].d be placed on thim en~ryway and Lhe waiv~er then v~ould rtot b~ naoarsary. Th~n i.n reaponee to Commiasion quegtioninq s~Ated that the doora had an opa~ning into the aourt. Mr. Ph~lp~ in raApons~ to qu~s tioning by Commi~asiones Allred reqarding the chan~~o ~.n tho xev~oed ~lan• over the original oubmitted Btated thaC one carport had r~en rsloaat~d. Cotamis~ionar xowlasnd obAarved that he hnd an unsahodu].ed discu~einn with tha (:'_::ef euildinq Inepsator who had brought up thn problst~ •of no ee~condary lire accees as r~quired by the Buildinq Code, e~nd ~ince thia~ proposal hsfl the Fatias going to tha prop~rty lina, cher~ v-oald b• no aces~c ~or the F3re Depe~rtment or Eor xha reei- donta to loave ia the avant ot a lire from their ovrn pattue~ a~nd th+~t thi.s wauld ~. • ~ MxNUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMI3SION, Auyuet Z0, 1.973 73-4?1 RECLAS~3IFICATZON N0. 73-74-12 i~ VARI~II~CF NA. 2544 would have ta be r~esolved eince it we-e a 9uilding Uivieion conc:ern~ howovez, he would likc t~ lurther etste that due tu the mnny other concerno o! Gt~e eui.lc9ing Divition, th~ CY~ief ~uildinq InArector did not liave time to analyza ell pe~i.tione which were coneidered bePoro the Ylanning Commiseion. DQputy City Attornoy 1Fzunk t,owry adviAed the Commie~ion t.hnt t' eee req,uiremente could not be wdiv~+d ae pnrt aP the roclAaeification Qx varience potit:ions, and it ti-c+ pstitioner cnuld not comply with the Ftre Code thon th~ c~evel~pment could nat bo constructd~~ however, it rrne very commendeble thnt Gommiesionor R~wland had ndvised th~ devaloper zegarding thie cnda zequiremmnt~ but etaff had nc~ver pointed thia out in their r~porta sinc~* it waH a codo requirement that cotild no~ bc~ waived even ~hough the plans havd been ~zeaented ut Intardepartm~ental Cammittee meec:ing the Fire Department an d Buildinq Diviei~n did not have a chence to review tho plans in detail, ne•~ertheleae, since the requirement ie not wai~vablc, t'h~re wao no need to ~t.~ate it in the Repozt ro khe Cummiasion. Mr. Phelps noted that the 6-foot wall did not accomp].ieh what tlie Chi.ef Bui].di.nq Tndpector. r~~uir~d~ tinat lhis stntement cam~- as a complete aurprise to him, si~tce it had nevor arisen before, and it was not in ef~act aacording to the 19~Q suild- inq Code,~ while the 1973 Building Co3e wae not in afEect at this time; howe~ver he could reduca the width of the p atios and place khe wall difPerenL•ly, but he was concHrned thaL thia wab n~t. brough~, up at the time he met wi.th atdff. Commisaioner Hexbek inquired h~w thQ aqent pzopasgd that residents of ther~e unita could mt+nnqe to esaape .l.n the event of a fire~ whereupon Mr. Phelpa atatad that every apartment cotn~lex. was '~uilt thia wayt that he di~cusaed this wit.h the fire marshall. and as a r~!ault hr propose:c] to break up the c~ntinuour~ line, however, the problem pr~sAr.ted coul.d he .resoi ~ed, and he would rather reduce the paLio size that proviae gates. Z'liE HEARING WA5 CGUSk;D. C~~mmiseioner Herbet cff~red a motion, seconded by~ Comn~iasioner Allr.ed, and MOTION CARRZED that the Planni~ng Commiseion, in connactj.on with an Exem~tion Ueclaration Status requeat, finds and determi.r-es that the ~~ropasal would have no signlficant environmental in:p act, and therefore, recommends to the City Council that no Environmental Zmpack Statement is necessary. Commi~sionex Hei'Y~st o~fezad Itesolution No. PC73-184, a;~d ~noved for its paesage aad adoption to recommend t~ ~he City c~unci~. approval of Petiti.on for P.eclassi- ft~ ation No. 73-74-12, sub{ ~~~ conditiona Rnd amenclment to condition 'No. 8 tha~, the ow ners of ~ je^' ~erty ~hall pay to the City of Anaheim appropriate pa.;c and recxeal:z~n in• ~a as determined to be appropriate by the City ," ,i~r~r.i], said fe x to be [.. ~he time tlae buildfng permit is iasued. (See R+-rolution ' k) On ~11 cul~ th~ foreqoing resvlution was passecl by t}ie following vote: A:~ESs CO MMTSSIONERSs Allred, Farano, Gausr, Herbst, Kinq, Rawland, Seymo uz. NOES : CC~Mb~ZSSIONERS s None. A95b:NT: COMM;SSIONERS: None. ~~ontinued discu~~afon waA held by the Commission, atafP, and the aqent reqa.rding :he concern expxcosed by the Chiof Duilding Inapector, and upon its conclusion Ms. Phelpe stS.pula~ted they wau:~d provide suffict~nt fire access to the re~r of the units for Fire ~epartment accesa and for an eacape route for th~ r.esid~nte. Commissiuner Herbet off~red Resolution Nu. PC73-185, and moved for its pessago and adoption to grant Pe~i~ton for Varla;nce No. 2544, subject to conditions and stipulation oP the petit~oner ~.'hat sufficient fire vehicular acceass wauld be provided to the zear of the unita 3Ild to provide, an escape r~ute for residents in ~he eve nt ot a f9.re, and am ~ the ^o;ndition to reflect th9 fect tihat Exhibit No. 1 was Reviaion No. 1, and that su~ficient acaesa aha~l be provided t~ the rear patio a~rea and that adequate eatape routQa sha.ll be pzavi~ied for all units in ceee of a fire. (See Reao].ution Book) On roll call t.he loregoing reaaluticn wa~ pasffied by the following vote: AYESt COMMISSION?RS~ A~lred. Farano, Gauer, Hezl,~:_, King, Aowland, Seymour. NOESi COMMIBSIONER~: None. ABSENTs COMMI8SIONERS: None. ~ ~ ~ MINUTEf3, CITY Pi~11NNTN0 COMMISBION, Auqu~t 20, 1973 73-492 R$CL1133IFICATTUN - PUDLIC HL~ARING. TNl~rinm~n BY THF ANAHF.IM CITY PLANNING COM_ NO. 73-74~15 MTSSION, 2~tA Ls~t L~..~aoln ~Venue, :~nsh~im proponing to ~eclaas- iPy prrpsrty 3escribaQ xs: 1~n irregu:ax]y-eh~peC area ~one.ist- ing oP approximat•~ly 7.2 ocres oomprieod ~f a~otal ot Z7 lots lxonking on bath oides of Brookhuret Street eouthgriy o4' Cr~~Klina Avenuo and ik~ N~~tierly extena~- ion~ nnd an ir,regularly-shnped pa~rc~l o~ land caneiatinq o! apprax~mat~Yy 2.9 acres inoluding a ZSQ~loot length at Kathryn [~rive, at tho norehw~at cornar o! Linculn Avenue and Brookhurst Straot, ha~vl.nq l.rontages of epproximetely ~z0 f.oAt on the woat e~de o~ arookhurat Straet a~nd 650 feet on t.be nocth side oP Lincoln Avcnue he rdolaesilied tr~m R-A, AGRICULTURAT,, ZONE (URGLNCY ORDIN]-VCE) to rho City ~f ~-ne~heim R-A~ AGRICULTURA,L, ZONE. Zoninq Supervieor Cha-rl~d Robezto not~d For t:he Commission thnt the rro~os~a reclASeification would ea~tab114h R-A Zor-:ln~ on the prop~rty pending cc~mp].iance with condition~ e3tnblished previouely b,y L•he ~ommieaiax~ on reclsesilicntiun uf the property ho C-0 and C-1 Zones. Mr. Frnegt Font.on, 30f1 North 8roakhurat Strae~~ appc~ared betore the Gommission and notod that he oN: ed propexty fror~tinq on tlrcrakhur~t Stre~t~ that they wezo attemptLny to hdve ~.lta pro~ertios contiguou~ to those lo~s fronting on Brookhurat along Aircher and Rnhcnito Stre4tie teclasaifiAd ta thy C-1 Zone eo th,at pzo~.`er usnga c~uld be made of the trantaqo lote, einco L•heir preeent widtli and 3 pth made it lmpoeeihle tn adequ~tely oon~truct and provide the Amenitiee t~~et were required Por Code f~r commerci.nl zaning. Chaf.rman Gauer no:ed t.hat the petftion before the Co~rmieaion coutd nr~t accomplieh the propoeaZ. Deputy City Attorneg Fr.ank Lowry advisdd Mr. Fent_~n that the propose~l before the C~mmiasion was to estat,li.ah R-A Zoning on th9 ~.roperky, since only an urqancy or.di.nance oxieted on the prc,pArtie~ and was a$tablist~ed e-t the timo the prop+arty was annexed fnto the Ci*.y, saic~ urgency ordina~nc.e w~uld not be eff.ecttve during the entire time the property was awaiting dpvelopmei~c into the commercial zoniny which thc Plannin~ Commissio:~ ht;d recommended to the City Council~ thezefor.e, the I reclaseification before tha Commission was cr.araly a technical~ty. Mr. Roberta noted for ~he Commisaion and interestt~d pereons tht+t .if property owners along Brook~uret Street and those rebi@ential streste just montioned wr~re desirous uf obtaining C-1 Zoning they would havd to fi~e a new pe~ition £or reclassific.ation, since C-0 2Aning was recommended 12or those lots fronting on Hrookhurat Street wk~1lp R-1 Zoning was recommea3ed for 9ircher and Ranchito S tree ta . Commissioner Seymour notea that the P3.anr:ing Commisaion had hald an adv8rtised public hearing un the propor~~.es and inquirec~ whether Mr. Fenton had been advised whereupon Mr. Fen•cor, stated he did nct~ f9ol the Commis~ion hed done a sufficient study on these lota sincs their. depth ~. tnsu£ficiant to permit development with commercial zoninqs arid that he `~e beer. uised of t.he gublic hearinq. CommiRAioner Seymour notec that since tha opFasition had ind.i.cated that he had be~en not~.fied of the previ.c.•ia public hearing at which time he could have presonCeB his arguments, his oppoeitian could no~ be considered aince the petit'_on beFore the Commlaeion was merely a h~uaekeeping r~claesification to ~stablish permanent City of Anaheim zc,ning ora the proper.tX unt:il suah time aa ~he prop3rty owner.a exerai9ed their ri.ghte under the r.e:laagifiaati~:u to C-O or r~quested coneidera- tion to the G-1 Zone under anothes' rion. Mr. renton xdvised Che Commiasion .•- ~ie did not think thera would be any chanqe fram that w.ich theeo properLies enjoyed prior to annexaCion, thua he had not prESent~ed an~ arguments a~ `_he previously acheduled publ1c hearinq. Mr. Roherts adviaed the Commiasion and intereetea pereo~• ~;.dt the raclassifioa- tlon to C-o 2oning and R-1 2oning would be caneidered riy the City (:ouncil in about 10 ddys, snd the oppositi.an could thun exprae~ their argumonts to ~he Coun ci 1 . Mr. Abra~ham Bakst, ~10 North Brookhuret Street, eppeareed before tho Commie~ion notinq he oarned property on the saet side og Rrookhurst SCreet, tha~ he concurzed with atatemente aa+~de by Mr. Fanton, but felt that the zoning actian shoulS be conaiaered by ~he Planninq Commisalon so that detailed study coulc3 be made refore racommer~dations wers made to the City Ccuncil~ ~nd that he had i~~t been dt the laet public hearinq beca~u~~s he hed a medical. appaintment. Furthr~rmore, he wae fully aware t:-ak ii-A toning wao bsing propoged,~ tiowavc~r, it was a~•~~Yv paor sone in which to develap or ~onsider commercial use~. ~ ~ MINUTF~S, CITY PLANNIN~ COMMIt38xOt1, ]-uyust 20, 1973 73-493 RECLAS9IF:(C1-TION N0. 73-74-15 (cont'd) Mr. L~owry advioad Mr. bek~t that it R-A 2o~ninq ware~ not plao~d on th~ pro~srty, it would b~ imposeible to obt~sin any othar zoning for th• proparty. "tr. Dakst abourved that eincn thi~ was the Flanning ~omr.ii~iori ~r{~ich plennad tox the developm~nt oP t.ha Ci~y, evan triouqh a~r~vious publio he~rinq ha4 bean held et whicr- time vha Cnmmi~~ion had recommended C-O ~oning, h• Yelt thst lurther atudy ~t~ould bo Qiven to th~~,x reqi~Aet bafora conoid~rAtl.on o! th~ zoning aotic~ns by tho City Councl].. THE HEARTNG WAS Ci.OS~iI. Commisaionnr Ftorbet opfured a motion, eoaonded by Commiaaian~r Seymour, and MOTION CARRIEQ tnat th~s Planning Cnmmiaeion, in oonne~tion with an Exsmption AQalaration Statue requcet, finde and determinea Lha'.. the propo~e-1 Mr~uld hava na eignificant E~nvir~nmental imPa~ct, and ~herel.ore, recUmm~nd~ to the CitY Council that ~io Environmental lmpaat Statement ie ~:iaceneary. Commisai.oner Herbat ofi'er.ed ReQOlution NO. PC73-186, and cqoveci for its paesage and adopti.un to recommend to tho City Council r.ppraval of Petition for Rec°.asAi- ficatioi~ ~~o. 73-74-15. (See Reeoluttori Book) On rol7. call the foregoing resoluti.on wns pa4apd by ~he Follov-ing votat AYES: COMMTSSTONLRS: Allred, Far.ano, Gauer, Harbst, King, Rowland, Seymour. NO~Ss COMMIS~IONERS: Npne. ABSFNT: COMMI:~SIONERS: Non9. CONDI9`IONAL U~E -~UBLYC HEARING. ANAH~IM BAPTIST CHURCH, 305 Eaet Aroadway, YERMIT N0. ].419 ~lnnheim, Cd. 92E05 , Oaner= MEL TURNER, ?17 East Brot~dw~y, ~ Anahoim, Ca., 92805, AgenLr zequasting pern,iesl.on ta have THE COt~TINUED USE OF A CHURCH FACYLITY AND ESTABLTSH A PRE-SCNOOL I'ACILITY F^R A MAi{TMUM OF SU PUBILS, WITH WAlVER OF (A) HINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKIr' SPACES AND tli) 'I'XPE OF FENCE IN FRONT ~FTBACK on property de~crib~ad ae: A recL•aa~gularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately one acxe havfnq a frontage of ap~roximataly 330 faet on the north side of. Broadw~y, hnving a maximum deuth of approximntely 135 feet, and being locat~d between Olive and Fhiladalphla stzeats. Froporty pxesantly c.lassified R-3, MUL'~'IPL~ FAMI'LY RESIDENTxAL, 20NE. No one appeared in oppo~ition. Although the Raport to the Commission was n~*. re~; :.`_ public hearing, it ie referred to and made part of the Minutos. D;r. ~•rank Col.eman, p+sstor o~ the P-nah~im Baptiai: Church appeared bmfore the Commiasion ard atated the agenl: for the p~tl.tia~,er was unable to be present~ that they were xequesting a parkinq wai.ver. .:n che basie tr~at t;~oy w~re in thg downtown area where churohea historical?y had verp little Naxkinq, ~+lthough ~her9 was pl8nty of parking available on wee~ken@s when offic~s A.id bueineasee were closedr that thoy pre~ently had only a membership of 100s that they naw propased to eatabliah a sohool, but he felt there wa-s adequate paxkinq sinc~ thesn classes would be held durinq tr~e week dnd during the daytime, wheti the reqular membershi.p would noti be using the available parking~ and that the fencc~ tl~ey proposed at the height ~f only ~ feet was beaad upon the ~act the the exiet- ingr xoning on the propmrty permi~ted onZy a 42-in.:h maaonxy wmll, but they would prf fex to txave a 5-foot fance to encloae th~ pla~y area~ aiid then in reaponse to Commiesion questionir+~ statod khdt t~.ey would provide the 9 parkl.ng epaces i.f the Commission ~o de~ired, and tti~ey wauld pave the area, hoaeve~r they preferrad to z~atain the area in graes becduae t}-eze was atxeet perkinq all around. THE HEARItdG WAS CL05ED. piecassi.on wae Y,eld by ~ha Commisaion as ta whether the petitioner wa~~ r~equesting waivez af all the parkinq or wheth~er he proposed to provido the 9 spa~es a~t a future date and whather tho parking ehould be psve~t in addition, wheth~r the fence ehould ba 4 feet or hiqher, and upon its conalusi~n, it wa~a detarmined the 9 parkinq apacas should be prowided now, ancl that the haiqhE a!' tho f~nce ehauld be at leaet 5 leet. r~ l:.~J ~ ~ M'lNUxF3~ CITY PL~ANNINC C061MIP:~ION• Augu~+t ?.Or 197Y ~~~q~a CONDI'~'xONA,L,_U~1E I~E:RM7T 'NQ. 1419 (cont'd) C~mmi~~rior~or Allre~l alPoxeQ a~:.~c tion, soc~nded by Commie,~ion~r Rowl~nd and MOTxON C,AItRIED thak th• Flanni.nq ~c~~a~-irNion, in aonn~ction wiCh a Rx~mption Uacle~xatican S~atu~ roqu~~t, find~ end determi.n~e th~-t th• propo~al wou].d hav~ no ~iqni. P.~cant QnviX~nn~nri~~~ l.mpaac:. and ~hereloxe, recommendr to Che City Coun~il t1~et na Env•lzonmontal tmp+~at 8tutoment is neaseanry. Commiee~io:ner A11rad a~lered Roaoluti~an No. ~r73~187, end moved tor itn psesaqo snd adoption to grAnt Cc~ndixional UMe 1Pcrmlt No. 1419, qra~ntinq wnivox o! the re~qu~.ced 20 p+~xking epscea pszmittiag instead on~y 9 apacee, on the basi.• that ohurches ~ahic:h hav~ be~n entdblS~ah~d in the doW~.town area hnve bsen qrantwd pa~zkf.ng wa•ivors tn tho ~net~ thaC Maiver ot the : aquirad wrough.t i.ron or opon work met~7. Yence~ i,e. fu~ther ~rnntca on ~he baeee tha~. rlthough the pruperty is zonec3 'R-~, nncl Che xone'es e~te develoE~mant etanclr c~w re~ufru WYOLL~Ilt iron or apen work fer.~;e, thc property he-s buen estak,li.~hcu1 ae a chuxch for o~rnstimo~ and the ~et~t.t~ona~r a+n~ propaaing a S-foot high chmin'.~ra:: fene~a. (E3es Reeolution Book) On roll call r.he f.'ore~gci.ng r.oeoJ.utzan wa.a~ pa~osoc~ S~,y the ~nllowi.nq vot~e: AYE:~ r C~~t4t4I5.~IONE:RR : Allrecl, Faxnno, Ge~+er, H~xbat, Ki nq, Rawland, 3oymour. NUF~~ COl~M'~:SSTONERS: Rano. pF~$1LNT: COMMa.iS'~OCiER5: ~1ane. RECR:;S ~ Cun~mi.sts~~ner R~~~-land muvad f~z a 10-mi,nute racsee nt 3~55 p.m, ~t~CUN'IENL: - Chairman GuMar xecov~ne~d Che m~,e~t.~nq at 4:10 ~.m.- Commiasianer Rawi~nd being abeent. 'VARIANCE NO. 2~~0 - I'UpLIC HE:11ltING- W'lLLTrINS ~'AMILY TRUST, S~m J. rfi.lliams~ ""~"~' ~~~~ ~ ~fruat~e, 1.12 Fust Gommo:~wealti~ Avenue, Ful],erton, Ca. !-?,632, Gwneri M. R. ..r~rbul:t, 1700 We~t Anaheim Street, .Lonq B~aA~rh, Cnlifornia 9uL't3, Aqeat~ zec~ue~ `.ing WAIVER OF L~.::A'PI01~ OF F+ FREi:- STAltDJ.N': S7 GN `TO OTHEA '1'HAN TH~ MIAD.*.~E 2ae ~~F THF PROPERTY on property dEecribed ~-,e: l1 r.ectar~gularly-shape~~ pax'cel o~ lantl cvne~8ting of approximately 2.37 Rcrae h,~~~nc; .~ f.znnt•age a~ appi:oximut~ly 168 foet on t.he nor~h eiSe of Linaoln Avenue, liaving a m,:axi.mum c4~aptti~ of n~pproximately 614 f~~t, and being loc~tod approximately 76G feet eust of h~:a cen~er7lne af. Rra^khurst Street. Praperty preeently clasei- f~.ed C-J., G1:NERAL COMMb:RC'[~-L~, ZONE. Na orie ~.~~eared i.n oppoeii.ion. Al.thaugh thQ Rdpc rt ta the C~mmis9i~n waq n.:* rec+8 at public haariti-g i.t ie refer- r~ed ~a and macle parr o~ ~fie Mlnute~~ , ~MZ, Nprman WinoA, rel~r.e~enting tli~ agen~ tor the petitioner anc~ the builc9ar, ~:~peax~~ before the Ccr.±mie~ion and r~ot~:d that at the time the builder had devel- opmd the pr.operty thdro wera eoveral largo treea on t~.e~ property, and the City t~ad ,equested that iP aC a11 poseible these treess bcs retAined for aesthetic a-nd ecological pu.rpoae~s~ txnd if thay waze r.ow to adhore to the sign ordinance require- ~nen~ of placing the ai.gn i~~ the cenr.er 2U4~ a~' the pr~rerty, one of theae trees Kou~d have ~o be renoved, wt~i.le ~ho siqn would be ~locked by the othe~r tree i~ ~~laced in tihe cen•ter 2Q! ~ thoreEor~,- ~1~ey wez~a requ~sting relidf from tha eiqn azdinance requiremant, $inc~+ thay, :~o~, wan~Pd ~~ r~et.ain the ~roee. The Commisai~n inc~+~ir.~d whmtiher the pe•t~ticner praposed to save both tre~e iE suDject petit~an were ap~rov~d, wh~exeup~n Mr. Winea _ep11~:S af£irmntivexy. TH$ HBARxNC~'WAS CLOSBD. xhe Commissiun t'hen inqui,rMd a--athsr ~he patitioner woul~ stipul+~te to r~ten- tlon o~ th~ tHO tr~es if subjec~ pa~ition were qrAnted, whereupon the pm'titioner ~o etiQulaxed. CoRmiesion~sz se.ymour of#armd a m~tion, ~ocoaded by Cammiesioner Herbe~, And MOTEO'~ CARRIED tihat the P1Anninq Commio~fon, in connection With a~n Exen-ption Declar$tion staturo requeat, Yind~ nmd d~termines th~-t the propoaal aould hAVe no siqnifiaant~ anv3.ranment~al impact, and tr.ereforeo recommend~e to tha City Council Ch».t ao 8nvixontae~~al In~paat Stntement is neaeasaxy. Comtaiasion~r Sey~our oYfcrad Ri~olution No. pC73-188 and moved !or ita paeaago and a~loption to grent Y~tition tor VariAnce No. 25d0, aubj~ct to aonditionA and the et9.pulation of tbe p~xitone~c that tha ~+xisting trees ao~+ld be ratained. (3me Reaolution 9aok) ~~ ~ ~ s MINUTaB, CITY PLIINNING CnMMISBTON, 1luquqt Z0, 1973 73-495 VARI7INCE N0. 2450 (continued) On soll aalL the toreg~ing ree~luti.on w~• parr~d by ~Ehe lollop~nq vutei ]1YE8~ COMMi85ZON~R$~ t-llrsd, Ferrno, Q~uar, H~rts~t, King, Saymou~~• NOB6~ C~MMISSIONLR3: Nune. 11858NTr COMMISSIONERSc Row~and. C~mmiseianer Rowland return~d ta the Council Ch~mbor ak 4s15 ~.~-. V~RI71NG8 NO. 2541 - PUALiC HEARiNG. SANDMI-N MCTELB, 2NC.~ Z08Z Bueinoes Center Drive~ Irvin~, Cs~ilornie 92664, Owner~ Hesth 1~ Campany, 3225 Lacy Street, Los Angalea, Ca~litoxnin 90031~ l-q~ntt requesting WA2VER OF RF;QU2RLMENT TH11T A FRSE-ST)1NQI~VC SiGN HL LOCATSU IN THB CENTER 20! OF THE BROPERTY FRONT~-GE TO RRSCT A FREE-STANDING T,O~NTIFIC11TiON gIGN IN THE CENTE R 458 OF THE; PROP. FRTY FRONTI-(iL on gropnrty deacribed as s An irreg- ulazly Ahaped psLCOl of land coneietinq ~f approxia-etely .40 ~-are t~aving +- fr~nt» aga o! ap~roximate7.y 110 feet on Che svest oide ot Harbor Houlavard, havir-q a mrximum depth of e-pproximat3ly ~65 feat, and beinq looetod 4pproximaC.aly 18d leet ,outh of the centerline ot V~rmont Avenue~ Property preemntly olae4l~iad C-R, COMMERCIAL R~CREATION, ZONE. Na one appoared in oppoaition. Althauqh the Report ta the Cammiseion w~s n~t read at public he~sing, it i.a referzed~ to and a-ada part oP the Minu~ea. Mr. Eugene Sreisomc~ieter, repreoenting the ~g~ent for tYae peti.~ianez, appeared belaze the Commission and atated thdt the only pa~ibin location for the siqn would be withir~ t.he center 4S+A rather than *.he cdnter 208 ~ that he had a- revised sketah of the si.gn which Carrows xesta.urant requeatod that he ~ie41~n in ordet to i.mprove their image, said revieion pro~vi.ding more wood, as woll as relocating *he aiqnt that Carrawa woul.d prefer the most re~:ent sketch rather thdn the eiqn submitted with the petition~ And that the locat:Lan of the sign wae necess~ry because of ather signs iri the area as well as tli~ fact that the streer curved at this loaatian makin,q i.t dif~icult for motozii~ts to aee the sign in eufficient time due to tihe heavy traffic on ~ho atreet. THE HEARING WAS CLOSEU. Zoning Sug~arvir~or Charles Raberte advieed the Commission that For the ~a-st few minutes he had been reviewing tha revib~d sk~tch, and it would appear that the area has not chanqed ca~.~i.de: ably, tior did the siqn exceed which wuuld be permit- tedt that the IICJE3Y3~ ior the ~etitioner had indicatsd that tho tota-1 heiqht would be low~r than the ~riginal sign by ane foot, but his on?y queatio~ would be the the Eact that two supporte were proposed which would encxoach into one of the parkinq spaces, and there elrea8y weg a ah~rtage of pdrking, eincs a pr~viQUs varianca pQtition had wa~ivAd eome o~ the required pa•rking. Mr. Breisemeister advisec~ the Commiseion ~.hst they would tzy to worY. around th4 one parkl.ng r~pace, but that the ten~ t pref~erred tha latter aket^hi that if Lhe parking wor^. laid out in the reax and the siqn lacatsd as required in the origina~ lacatiom tl~is would mean the vehicla wnuld haee to back inta the traffic lane of tha xiqht-of-way, ~hus it would be better traffi~wise to extend the planter area, but from a safety ~tandpoin~ it woul3 be better to eliminate the parkinq atall. Commisefoner. Rowland expressad the cpinian tihat he would n~k be intereeted in qranting a wr~iver from a hardahiF exieting only ~o cxe~te anothez haxdship situ~-- tion. Continued diacur~sion was hold between the Commiesion anS the aqeat rsq~xdir-q Lh~ proposed sign alcetch just praesnted and the parkinq khat it woul~d a!laots that psrhape th~ Commission ~hould have a revised ple~i rather than a sketch which stmP~ could review and repart to th• Commisaion~ rrhereupon Mr. Aabsrts e~tated that six~ce the ste~~f report vraa b~sad on the originsl ~Ian submitted, rath~Y than thA plan submittad at the hearing, ig the Cammiea~ion telt tria~ the latter aiqa wa• accaptab7,e, action could b9 teken on the gptition, and atstf co~a!d th~n tzy tp rosolve the siqn looa~ion with the petition.ar ta datermina aheth~i it would I be •atiefactory ta have a oiyn wikh two snpports in the area without d~c~ea~inq Che required pa~rking. I ~ ~ NiNUT68, CITY FLANNING COMhIBJION, llugust 20, 1913 73-496 V1-R~ I~~~~g Nq~2541 (oon~inusc!) The Commio~ir•i wa~ ofi th. opinion thet th~ •iqn they woutd +~pprove would b• that Mhioh wa~~ oriq~.naily con~id~x~d by atati. Co~ami~~ion~r 1-11z~d o!lered a motion, escondsd by c;omm~~~~oner Horbs~, and MOTION C1-RRILO thdt tha Pl~nning Coma~io~ion~ in oann~ation with sn ~xamption Statu~ r~quert, linde ~-n11 dotermin~s that the pxopo~al wauld have~ no signitice.nt ~nvironm~ntel impac~, nndl therelora~ zeaommends to ths C1ky Counail tha~ no [tnvironm~ntal =mpact State~nent .is necaesary. Com:nisaion~r Allred o.ffered Ruevl~~tion NQ. Po73-169 end movad for ats pa.eaqe an4 d~O~~~.Oh ta gr~nt Pe~iti.oz- Por Vari.ance No. ~541, aub~aot ta conditiona. (ge~ R~solution Book) On rolx call the foregaing roeol~xtion wee paewed by the follawing vota: ~YES ~ CONtMI88I0NER3: Allred, Fareno, ua~,~r~ Harbet, Kinq, Sey~noux, NOES~ COMMI33IONERS: NonA. AESENTe COMM26SIONER5: Non~. ~CONDITIOHAL - PUBLIC H~ARING. BE'fDINE PROPERTIE3, INC., 12550 Brnokh~ret Street, USE PERMIT Suite A, Garden GroWe, Ca. 92640, Ownerj WILLARD R. POOI„ 12550 Np. 1414 Bzookhurst ~treet, Suite A, Garden Orove, California 92640, Aqent~ requesting permission to E:IPANU AN EXI37C~N6 DRIVE-IN THEATEA WITH WAIV~R dF KEQUIRED BLOCK WALI• SURROUNDING QUTDOOR USES on prop~rty deecribed de~ An irzrgularly-shaped parcel of land aonc+isting of approximately 18 acres having a frontage of approximately 90 #eet on the oast afde of Lamnn ~treeti, huving a maximum degtYi of approxi~nately 1,30~ PR6t, and b~ia~ located approximntely 900 feet south of t«., centerline of Orangethozpe Avenuo. Property pxeeently claasi~ied M-1, LIGIiT INDUSTRiAL, ZON~. Na one a~ppeared in opp~eition. Alttsough the Report to the Commission wna not read xt public hearing. it is referred to and me~de part of. the Minu~e~. Mr~ Harry Kr~isaly, attorney, repreaenting the agent and the petitioner, appeared bofare the Commission and eta~ed thnt the petitione~ow~Sedrto~devate~an~arealt~he exiating faciliti~sr that in ~k~ie remodeling they p P ~s holdinq area for cars entering off the etr~et whiah would help ingr~se and ec~resa~ that the property waA p'resently fencod anc this was aSequate to serve the petitioner's needg, whereae a 6-foot btock wall wo,ild r~erve no purg~ae ba~aau~e of its locaki.an to the freewayt that t}-e condicians requiring payment of the ~treat ligh~s and atree~. feas wnuld have to be taken care of by the owner of the propertyi and that the architer,t was available tu answer c~ue~tions. The Commaeion inquired whethsr this faci.lity c~uld be seen fram the freeway~ wheraupun Mr. Knisely sta:ed thaL• the off ramp was ~ocated ac~jacent to subject pr~pezty- and this was on a level aree, whild the freewny itgelE wae above the aubject prooerty, and that there was consi.derab].e freeway l~nclscaning to shielc~ the uee ~xom view from tY~e freeway. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissionor Allsed inquired whethez it was poasible to reroute some of the outgoing traPfic onto another streetit wher~upon Mr. Knisely stated it was pro- poaed to have an a3ditional 9gresa to Durst Street. Chairman Gauer inquired what conditiona of approvnl di8 thp I'lanninq Cammission attach to th~ e:pprnval of the dri.ve-in theater which wae partly in Ana,haim e-ri3 the ma~ority in Oranget w'hes~ounan Mr. Roberts steted that one of t!~e problema which the theater in Oranqe hac*, Kas that of the Stadium liqhts d,urinq a ballgan~et and that the City Council iaposad tha oondition of not permitting any lilms boing ahown on the acr.een loca-ted in Anuh~im which ~ou1d not be viewed by childrer~ under 18 y~ars of age. Chaira~an Qau~r inquired v:heth~r "X-rated" movieF •~ere shown at tha *heater in Orange~ whereupon Deputy City Ai:torney F'rank Lo~~y state@ that "X-rated" movie$ were Aho~rn on the acre6ns located in Orange but not on the acreen locata~d in Anahaim. ~~ ~ ~ MINUT$S. CITX PLANNxNa CQMMI88ION, August 10, 1~7~ 73-497 ~~p'pIT~ONA~ Ug~ IE pEAMIT pU. 1A14(cont'~1) Mr. Rob~rta inqui~ed wh~thex it would b• Gommi~o~an'~ imtent to m~ke it a aondi- tion o! approvai that tree~ ba plantad •t the r~+~r ot th• new •Gr~on, ~ino• rapiQxy q=oMiaq Call treen aould be x~quireA •t th~ resr a! ~h~ scr~~r~ Mhich aould ~hi~ld it lrom viev- ~rom the lreeway, boaauea th~ plels b~tor~ th~ Camrai~rion in~llaat~d khat ~amo structural b~em~ aould be vl~sbl• even thou~h the pan~l~ on the k+aok o! th• rorern would p+~iatsd a-staY~ ~hereupon ~he Commi.~iit,r. •t+~t~d thst tall ~rs~~ ehouid be pldntsa ad~aoent to ~ho ~-ear o~ ~he nww movi~ soreun and inc~ulxod ot tha agAnt for tho petitioner i! they aauld ~o otipuJ.ste. Mr. Kni~~ly stipulet~cl to the plan~inq o! treea to th~ rear o! thm new ecr~Ana lurthexmara, he would also ~t.ipul.ata to praviding redwo~d ~lats in tho ohsinlink tenoe einoe xedwooa sla~te were r.edily avei~4blm. Commis~ioner Allred uftered e motion, saconded hy Commiasion~r Rowland, and MOTION CARRIEn (Commisainnaz seymour nbsteinefl) that tha Pianning CommissiAn, in conn~atian with an Exemption Dealeration 8tatue regueet, tinde and d~tszmin~~ the~t the ~aropoaal would he~vs no aipniPia~nt environta~ntal impact~ and thereYare, reoommende to th• City Council that no F.nvixonmental Impaut 8tatamant ie neaaeeaxy. Commieaioner Rowlaad oEfered Res~lution No. PC73-19U, and moved f~r ite p~~saye and aclopti~n, to qrant Petition for Conditianal Uea permit No. 1414, qrnntinq weiver of the required 6-foot masonry wall on th~ bsaie that uae hmd bean in ax- ist;enao for e number of yeara with metial fencing, e~n~ tho ~expaneion prop~sed would be to divide ~ns existing use t~ projeat two ecr6ener thnt the petiticner etipulated Go planting treea a-t the rear of the new pictuxe acreen to shield lxom view the z'aur of tk-e ecreen from the Atraet and fr.eewt-yt ~1~~-t t1~~ petitioner further stipu3ated thAt redwood slata wor~ld ba provided in the chain~ink fer~aet dnd in eddition, the petitioner also at~pulated ~het no "X-zated" films would be projactod on the screens of eubject px'ogoxtyr and aubje~ct to oonditionst with the added conditi~n that the ownere oY ~ubject property et-all obtain clearance from the 3tate of California- Division of Hiqhways that lighto from cara wiLhin the theater will not interfere with fre~aay t.E'Ag~~.C. (See Reeolutian Book) On roll call the Poxegotng reaolution passed by the following voto: AYES: COMMY35IONERSs Ailred, Farano, Gauer, Herbet, King, Rowland. NOESs COMMI3SZONER5: None. ABSENT~ COMMISSIONL~RS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMrS5I0NERS: Seymour.. Com~issioner ~e,ymour stated that his abstontion in the vot•ing was based upon the tact that Mr. Knisely wMS eleo his Y~ttorney. VARZANC~ N0. 2543 requesting W~IVER HOUS~: on property of appraxim~tely ,~outh side of V:.a and baing loca~e~i Avr~nue . P rope rty - PUBI~IC HEARTNG. aHIEI.D5 KP.UTZSCfI & KENNETY. ROSS, 1230 Somer- set Kabem Bewoi~.t Heach, C~. 92660, Ownersi SiiI~LDS KRUTZSCH, 1208 South Bay '?zont, Balboa Yeland, Ca. 92662, Agent; OF MINIMUM NUNIB~R ~~ PARKING SPACES TO ESTABT.ISH A MINI-WARE- ciescribed ao: A rectangularly-ahaped parcel of land coneiating 1.3 acrc~s having a frontage of approximntely 192 feet on the Burton StreEt, havinq a max~.wum depth of approximately 2y3 fe,et, mppraximate'ly 395 feet w~eflt of tho centerli.ne o~ placentia presently ola~~.~t£ied M-l, LIGH'P INUUSTRIAL, ZONE. Nu on~t a~ppeara3 ~n oppoaition. Although the Rep~rt to the Commiesion wag not read at public hdarln., it is referrgd to and made part of t:~e Mint~tes. Mr. Shielda Krutzsch, agent for th~ petitianer, appeared L•efore the C~mmisaion ~siid statesd that tY~ey had a chanqe in thc~ir thinl:ing in the proposed projsct in that the tront b+xilding ar.s designated ae office and warehouse~ bux tt~ey would liY,e this to be liqht manufact~aringt thst they hgd made arranqemente to provide an ddditi.onal nUmber of parkinq spacee, and because of this they felt they should appear to pxesent thia 1aPormation for C~mmission cc-naidereti.on. The Cnmmisaioa in~uired whether the petitioner waa pxapoeinq ko aomply with Ehe requir~c! pr~rkingt ahdi~~o°or~ed.fewerypark3nq~apacestthan Codeewouldlrequire.b~ nece$eary, since they Q 8 ~ ~ MINUTL~B, CITY ~LANNING COMM~SSTON, Auqust ~0, 1973 79-498 VARIl1NC~ N0, 2543(aont'd) Commiseion~r 8~ymour expre~e~ad th~ opinion thai: p~rhapo th• Cammia~ian ~hould continue ~ub~~at p~tition in or4~x tha~ roviseQ rlene onuld b~ ~ubmitti~d tor statR to analyzei whwr~upon Mr. Krutascly ~tat~d that th• b~si• !ar the ;nai~~a+ was b~oauam they pro~~osed to pzo~rids only 73~ ot th• r~quired psrkingr the asmm lormule that pa-r ueed i~,~ aalaulatinq th• parking c:ouldl b• used in this ine~enc• baA+-~sA thair ~hinki.ng had ohang0d tihen he would aoarur with ~h~ propoi~d oon~xnuana~. Zoning Supervisor Charlea Robsxts advis~d the Cammi~ei.an snd th• pe~itiuner that ravi~sed p~an~ would hav~e to bo submittad by W~d~-e~dA~- o! thl.s v+eek in ordsr tihati th~y miqht be aonaidered dk tih~e Interd~psrtmental Coanmitte~t and L•hat tha park~n~ ~~aaes o! 19 ase haoed on the assump+~ion ~hat the buildinq• ad~ecent to ViA ~urton would be uaed tar warehouso lae~.liL•iae whi.ch would mean th+~t if theae buildiagd wera u0ed ~or light manufacturiny~ there would b• mor• thsn 27 sp.~aos raquiraa~ howavor, he+ could not es~ima~a the number until !ho r~viAed plan~ we~re nubmitted. Commiseianer Rowlnnd offered A motion, seconded by Cammiaeiener Fa~xeno, and MOTSON CARRIED to continue oonaideration of Petition !or Verisnoe Na. 2543 to ~he mestinq of Septembez 5, 1973, in or.der to allow tima tor the ~aubmission of revibud plane for etaLf tU raview an~l resor~. VARIANCE N0._25A5 - PUl3LIC HEARSNG. LAWRENCE BpMMARITO 6 JOHN C. MLYER, 120t " - Eaet Rdil Rcad, Suit~ X, Ane~heim, Gelifornia 97805, Owner4~ DON J. G7~~t80K & BILj~ HAR~'EY, ~Dr~nco Induetri+al Properties, ::,sl Eaai: La Palma Avenue~ Anaheim, California 92807, Agentsi reque~~inq WAIVER OF (A) PERMY~TED USES IN ~'HE M-1 ZONE AND (B? REQUIRBD NUMAER OF PARKING 3PACES TO ESTABLISH AN OFFICE SUPPLY COMPANY AND MA~1'UFACTUFINC FIRMS on proper.ty clee- acri.bed aa: A reotangulazly~ehaped pArce~l of land coneieting of approximatoly .49 acre having a fron~age of approxim+atYOxlma,telYe150nfeet,w~sa bei:~gQlocutede1 9oulevArd, having a maximum depth of app appro imately 190 feet south uf the centerline o! Nliraloma Avenue. ?roperty presei~tly classific~d M-1, LSG2iT INDUSTRiAL~ 20NE (Pnrcal 1) R-A, AGRICULTURAL ~ONE (ParcQl 2) • No on~ appea-red in opposit3on. Although t.he Report to tha Cun-mir~sion wae not zead at pub2ic hearinq, it ia rQferrad t~ and made parC of the Minu~es. Eir. Don Carson, repzesenting the agent ~for the petitioner, dppeared befflre the Commission dnd natEd. that the property wae in escxow pendinq t~pproval of the aubject petitioni that a 7500 aquare ioor tndugtrial building with three unite was propaced to be bui.ltt that two o~' the three unita would be sold off while the third ~3nit would be occupied by the prapc-sP~j~hg~ Waiver of~thetrequirec?~parke supply pximarily snrving commerce an3 induatry~ inq was being requ9seed, sin4e it- was not int~nde~i to have ;+alk-in tra~de as a requ~ax retail facility would have, nor would it have the a.ppeara-nce of a reteil facilit,yt that since the plan was submi.scted wi~h the petition i~ was deteru-tned that t~-o additiQnal par.hing spaces could be provided making thti tot~sl 17 apacest and then in response to comme~itc~ made by Cttuirma: Gauer reaqarding tho Eact that an office suppl.y company would en.courage retail salea d~.re~t t~ the r.ustamer, atated th~-t they would be primarily a whclesa-le supply compsny with very few of the custont~rs cominq in L•o purcha~e, sven though they did have a dieplay area, it would be !or a one t~.me only visit by r~ customex, and all f~~°comcantacte wauld be k~y telephoiie, with delivary mada to the cu~~tomer by P Y• Mr. Jezry Wilkee 114 North Bradfoxd, plscentia appeaze8 befozs the Commission and ecated that he w~uin he operating this ft~cility, and ~heir eaXes wer~ nok dizected towerd retail, nor d3d they intend to havo a qreeting card businea~, which cou~d encouraqe walk-in retail sa~ea, but would instead~ be mAde by can~+xct directly or by telophone, ar~d pexhape in the inl.tial phese the cuetnmer might want ta c~me to view the varioup supplles which thay would eell, but all tuture buainosa would ~g by telephona. The Commis~ion nQted that the aftiee suppliee businems N~s rather a vaqu~ and bro+sd typ• o! opas~ation~, and i.nquired whether it wAS propQaed to •ell o~~ica equipmentj wb~reupcn Mr. Nilkss atated tihsy prapoeed to asll ri.bbons for addinq machines +~nd typawri.tere, ~+-Qer~ ~anaila • etz.. but no dt~~~ e u pment ~ha~t they dic9 not intana to have the nd 9Q~~~f the~busine~seto~a~m~Vir~mu~r~uAtxy~.~ ronize their operation, bu~ expec~e ~ ~ MINUTE9~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSIf!N, l-ugtte-t 20, 19'~3 ~1^A99 VARIAliC~ N0. 2545 (cont'd) The Coc~miRSion •xprear~d aoncarn that thie m,~qht encouraqe retail sales c~! walkin Fli~ ikug e tatod that :: ~ wQUI d bo businece in tih~ ind~iw~rial xredt wh~r~uQan Mr. ratail in the aense ~h+~t he would b~ a+allfng on pros~~ctive cu~tume~r~, Nho in tu:•n v+ould v1eiC ttia tacility to .ao ths Qispl~aY erea which oonoie4ed oP a~proxi~- metal,y ~/3 displs~y nnd 1/3 atornga but ta~a~ of the bueinass wou~~! ba in anc] out ot the "back~ door" and thet et hi~ pxesant op4xmtion th~ 4xeatiing Qard anA walkir buoindss only a~mounted to 51500, than in xspponee to tuxthe~r Coe~mi~ei.on question- ing, statad that nlthouqh ho waa locsted downtow~n now, l~is Kalhin trade emaun~ed ~o leas than 10~ o! the b~xeineae, and mor~s than 9Q1 0! the bu~ir~omN he deli~er~d~ Purthermoro, ho i.ntAnded ta cluee out thA gr~eting cnrA bue+.nasr, Rinaa he ~xo- posed that thi~ would be n busir.ees servinq in~]uetry prima~ril.y. Co-nm~ssioner Farano expressed khe aginlon that ~e could not s~~ how khe propose~ operator would be conductiaq buexneee an an industr~al bnsis when ha had :~oti indicr~L•ed tho full chardcter of the businape~ thmt a Cew alight adjuAtments oAU]d be mmde lf the induatridl busir:c,aa wr~s not fax~thcomJ.ng and this coulQ be turn~ecl into ~ full-f~edged rete+il oparetion ogeii to the qenAral public. Mr. Wilkee advise~d the Cummieaion that ehe ma~ority of their incame came Prom induetr<<, snd t!~is tiispite the fact that they were n~w 1~oAOSedntot+~ell~too d schoAl, n..:~ then agai.n re~i~+wed the type o~ go~ds they p P industxY • THE HEARING WA.S ~I~OS~D . Commissiuner Seymour offered a motion, saconded by Commiaeionor 1C~nq, and MC~TION CARRSED that the Plannin7 Commiasi~on, in connection witn an c:cempti~n Deela-ration Status request~ finda and d~atcrminea thaC hhe pro~oaal would have no eiqnificAnt Anvironmsntal ~mpact, anc~ therefore, recom~ionde to the City Council thar no Environmental Impact sta~eu~en~ ia neceasary. Commisei.oner Herbst Uffered Resolutian No. 73•-191, and. moved for 1ts passage and adoption to qrant Petitior. for Varianca N~. 2545. eub~ect to condition~ales wonld findinqe ihat the peti.tioner etipula~ad that 9fi+i of tho oEPica supp Y be obtained by telephone and then delivered,and that less than 10$ ot the businee would be diroct sales to the public or walk-in Y.rade, ihecumpanytwould~benorient- pased would be adoquai.e1 tha~ the proposei of~iae supp y ed toward aammerce ar..d industry, a~id therefore, is considered to be a Gompatibla uee within the t~-1 zoner and that the p~et~tionpz fuzther otipulatad ther.e wouldl be NO greeting cerd sales.(See Resaiution H~ok). On roll call th~ foregoing resolution was pass~id by tha f~llowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farana Gauer, Herb~~, King, Rowland, Seyr~our. NOES: COMMISSIONERS. None. ABSEN`P: COMMISSi6NE RS: None. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. RAYMOND G. SPEHP,~t, et a7~, 913 Pmloma Place, P~RMI7' N0. 1a2C FullerCon, Ca. 92735, Owners) J~ A. STEWART CONSTRUCTION CO., 7LNC. , 7150 Feriwick Lane, Suite 21:t, Weatm~inetor, Ca. 92683, Agenti .requesting pozmission to ESTABLISH A ItETAIL PLANT NURSERY WITH WAIVER OF (A) k'RONT BUILDING 5FTHACICt (3} WiDTH `G~ NUMBEROFFWALL LANBSCAPINGi (C) SCREENING OF OUTDOOR USE FROM THE FR~SWAY, 5IGIJ5, (E? BLOCK WALL ENCLOS.T.NG STORAGE OF PL3-hT-RELATEL~ MATERIALS, AND (F) MINIMUM NUMB£R OF REQ'UIRSD PA1tKING SPACES on pronerty daecribed ae: Are irrequla ly shaped parcel of land conaiating of ~approximately Z.1 acres hhAVing~afmaximum of a~proximately 291 feet on the south side o£ La Palma Avenue, deQ~h of appxcximatel.~; 2~~ gPetr dnd pro~+ertyCp~'esently~claseifie850Cf 1~tGENER7~L the cPnt~arlfno o¢ Imperial Highway. COMMERCXAL, ZON3. No one ttppearecl in opposikion. Althougr the Report ta the Commission was n~e rbad at public t~ea~riraqo it ±g referred tu and made part of the Minutes. Mr. J. W. Stewaz~, n9ent £or the petitioner indicated hiA preeence, noting that the architeat as w~ll as the ~wnes were pregent to answer queatiionef that the owner h~d in~1lc~+ted that th~ straet tre ~s had }aeen paid in 1968 bx the pet~tiona there$ingltheiP'ire~~epast~mentareqaire entsbaho~icY~be furthertexp].ainagcondition reqar g ~ ...~ ~ MxNUTEJ, CTTY YLIINNIN~ COI~iMIE33TON, Au~ust ~0, 1973 73~~00 CANDYTiONAL USE Pi~RMiT N~_ 14;'0 (oont' d) Zani~ng eup~rviaor Charla~ Roberts, in raspon~e~ •t~t~A h~ did not knoN Nhat th• 1"irw DspArCm~nt would raquira, hi~t th~ Ci:y had expori~neen in oth~r proj4cto vrhich hed ~tart~.: oon~truotion end did not ave the !!r• hydzentr ohxrg~d, r~~u,ltinq i.n thc •truatuze~ hev~ng burned. TNB MSA-~ ~ NG ~S CLOB~D. ^ommi~~ioner 6eymour ex~+ze~YSed concbrn rwgardi~g L•he lath houae pro~c.sed in th~ r~~uired lront eekbeak ar~+s e-lonq La Pelmn AvAnue, and inquirnd whsthbr th~r• w~e any p'robloa~ in lte r~location, eince a sJ.i.ght ChAnq~ wo~~ld alimi.nek~ thA roque~eed waiver, nnd the Commiseion And City Council hAd clunq vary tenuciously to preeerving qood sol.id development ir~ th• a~res undsr coneidernti,on to protect the eoenic corxidor reqt~iromunt.e~ nnd thah i~ would +~~pear tha+t the lsth houae couid be relocated vary aaeily. Mr. Ed. Huxley, a414 Buyard, Pacif.ic HeAC1~, ap areci before t:he Commieaion, nat.inq thet he ha-d desigued the projecti thn~t it would be poesiblQ to move the larh hou~e 9~~ ~hat it would be 40 toet i~m the property line if tlie Commieaion so deairaA, but he would .Like to ~oint ~ut that Yhe ather thre~e Nurseryla.nd operationa~, twa of which wer~: i.n San Uiti~o, had met wikh a very wArm z•acept;ion, becauae ~he pro- pr~~~~,d owner ha3 gona beyond the requireme~iea of each aity. Commi.seioner Herbet then f.nquirerl why four. ei.yn~ were propoood cvere they all tnat neceaesry t~ the uporation7 Mr. Huxley rop] led that four siqns were not needed, and the freewny sign wae not ne9~led, but they neaded mor.e tha~- one aiyn pe°mi.tted in the SC ~one, and per- ha,p~ Chey cnuld qet by with two siqns. Cammissioner Horbst notad that eubjert proaerty was l~~cated in the ecenic corri- dor~ and he did n~r feet that the !' .mm•laston ehould erant dnything that wAs contrary to the re~ul~+tiona set fort*: in the SC 2~ne,and he would alway~ oppose anything that w3a cont.t:.-ry, particuZarly sinae the SC Zone was paesed aft.er r,iany public haaring3 were held. Tnerefore, any aigninq cnr.trarv Lo the zone uould or aliuuld be dieallowed, and anyone dev~:lopi.ng :n that ar muet abide by ~hose regulations. Mr. Huxley no~ed that there w~ro signs in the area tha*_ wera roritrary to the SC 2one requir.emenL•e~ whereupan Commissionsr. Herbst observed these ~igns wer.e estab- lis:~td prior to the adopt.ian of the SC Zone. Commissioner Seymour then requested t.iiat staff Qxplain what code would pern~it as to signir.gj whereupon tdr. Roberts stated that Lhe SC Zono rof-~rec~ back to ':ha C-H Zone sign requirements whicti cii3 not permit free-standing eiqne. Mr. Huxley notafi that the conPiyur~-tion of the buildii~g waa such that cnly one sign at a time would be viaible. Comiisnioner Herbst noted that as a commissianer, one had to determine what was best ior an araa, and if on~ aign waivec 3n a 3~.ven zone was permitted, this would establish a precedent wh~x'eby the Commiasi.on could not deny other r.equests for similar signin,q, and inquir~~d what partiaular hardahip di~d the pci:itinnFr have to wa.rrant fnvorable consideratinn of waivinq of ~he siqn requirementst whereu~on t~r. Nuxley stated that no siqnlny would be recognizable from either direction, since these woul~l be lettered signing. Mr. Roberte in response to Commission q~~estioning gtated that wall aigna could not exceed 10~ of the wal.l to which the sign would be affixed. Continued discussion was held by the Commi~eion, staff, and the petitioner/agent rogarding the aigning, lath house 3.ocation, height of the ofPice building, visi- bilitiy ef siqninq fr~m the freeway, whether or not the eign wae a wall aign, and whether it protruded above thp eaves or parepetsi houndarias of the soeaic ..~rri- dor overlay zonot and purpose of r.cducinq the number of parkinq gp~acce. Mr. Huxley aoted thaC calculation of the pe~rking wae based upon considerinq tha lath houae as u regular structur.e, hovrever, it houaed glant~t that he Y~ad desiqned a aimilar o~eration in 5an Disgo wi~:• the sa e~ype cf parl:inq~ and it was lound tha: 3U parkinq space~ aae more than adequate. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANlV1NG COMMI38~ON, Augutt 20, 1973 7:3-SO1 CONaiTIONAI~ UfiE PERMLT N0. 141b (o~nt'd) Commi~~ion~r :c~ymour o! tet'a R mntion, ~econaed by Commieiionar ~'arano, •nQ MOTION Cl1ltRxL~~) ths~ the Alanninq Coma-iotion, in oonn~ation wieh an Ex~mpt~or~ Dacl~ration St:atuR requ~o~, find~ •na de~erm~nee that Cha pr.c~pos~l wou1Q have no ~iqni.li~ant: •nvironmantsl im~e~t, and tD~nrefore, raoomm~ndo to th~e City Caunoil that rio Environ~nentK~. Ymp+-ot statamsat i~ nsow~~ary, Commiseionar :zaymour o! ter~d R~~oluti.on No. PC73-19~, and moved !or ite pa~AS9e ~nd adoption eo yrant Patition !oz• C.onditi~nel Uso Parmit No. 1420 in p+~.rt, do:~ying vaive~r o4 the wali ~igne 8~.I1Ce aubjeot prop~rty could be ni,gned adequat~ly within th• renuirements o! the SC 2onei thac waiver o! trie buildi.ng sethaek wa~ A1Nd to Ue dsniod on th a beeia that if eaid waivar were qxanted it woul-! •etablish esn undeeirabl~ precedont and nh~nta all thA ofPozCs o! the city tc- A~ptsbliah th~ 3ant•e Ana Can,yon aa a s cmnic rour,o, and coul3 par~ib~.y jeopardi~e retention o! t.he 9tste'e designntion of this aree~ alonq the Riv~reiJe Froeway as a sa~n~in xauter that waiver of the block wall requiremAnt waA granted on ~he baais that lendac~,ped acreenir,g es proposod wauld be adequate to ehield tho outdoor use i that waiver of the parkinq requirementn w~e grai:ted on the baeis that the l~.th huuoe ~hould not be cnnAidered a~e p+~rt o! tho etructur9~ in calcul~ting pnrking requiro- me,n tb ~ an3 sub jact L•~ conditi.one. ( 9ee Resolution Hook) Prior t~, roll call con tlnuod diocuoeion was rieZd betw~en the Commieeion and the petitioner/aqont reynrding the landnaape etrip proposed adjacent to the arterial highway r wk~ether tne pati.~ioner should ~tipulato to guarantoein~ t:~nt ~n the event the nuzsery stock pro,~osed ae parr nf the front landacaping wao deplofed that permanent lar~dgaapi.ng +~nd irriqation would be pzovided1 and that every eFfort ak,ould be made to rel:ention of th3 requirementa of the SC Zone. Upon cuncluaion of the diac uealan hhe po~itioner stipulated that in the event the 20-foot lan~scape atrip adjacent to ~he arterial highway wAe not maintAi.nod in perpetuity, that permnnent landecapinq and matntenance wauld be ~rov~ded. Commisaioner Seymour arnended hie motion to inclucle the atipulation made by th~ potitionAr, and to add an additional finc~iz~g that waiver nf the required ocreen- ing of outdoor usea £rom a freeway or scer-i~ highw~y ie granted on the basis that the type of use nron~~ ea would in i~eelf pro~ide r~dequate iandscdpe screAning. (See Resulution Book) On roll call. the foregoing resolution wns pa3sed by the following vote: AyES s COMMISSIONERS : Allred, F~arrno, Gauer, Herbgt, King, Seymouz. NOES: COMMISSIONE'tS s Nane. AB~;ENT: ^OMMISSIONERS ~ None. AB~'~AIN: COMMISSIONERS ; Rowland. COlaAIPIONAL USE -- PUBLZC HEARING. GILaERT U. KRAEME'R, JR. ET AL, P. 0. BOX 275, PL'Ri~"tT N0. 1421 Placehtia, Ca. 92G70, Own9rat tiAROLD R. PROVIN, 9841 Downey° ~ ~ Narwa lk ~toad, Down~y ~ California 90241, AgQntj requestinq p$r- mis sion to EBTABLISH A CONTRACTOR'S STORAGE YARD ANb OFL'ICE on proparty d~acribad a~~ An irregulerwy-ehapod parcet of land conaistinq of approxinately ~.5 acres having a frontaqe of approximately 22G~ feer on the llOlt}1 eide of La Pa'.ma Avenue, having a maximu~r depth of approximately 530 fe~t, an3 being lacai.~a appxoxi rnately 2U0 feet ~ast of the conterline of Blue Gum Skreet. Property pxeaentl,y claeaif~ied ~t~A, AGRICULTiIRAL, 20NE. One p~raon indicated 2iie preoence in oppoeition, but w.~ved readinq of the Report to the Planning Commi s~ion. Although th9 Report t o the Con~miaslon was not read at public hearinq, it i• raf- erred to and made p a rt of thA Minutos. Mr. Herold Pxuvin, aqent for the peti.tioner, indicated hist preeonce ro answer any que~tions, ~~ting they concuzred ~+ith all xer,ommendationa by st~sff. Mx. Bradley, reproae n tinq Bsy~n Industrial propertipe, appeared beford the Com- miesion in oppoeittora, a~nd state d h1~ compAny had s~veral parcels of psaperty developed in close praximi.ty at La- Palma i-venua and Xzaem~+r Aoulavasd, ot Red Gum and La Palma and at Blue Gum and La Pa1ma-t ~hat they had been wnxking f.ar 8-10 year~+ to de~elo p the North~ast xnduatrial hrea, and felt that the conatzuc- t±on of a contractor • s etorage yarl~ Mould be unsigh'tly and incompstible with the astabtighed ~.nduatri8a in the axee-~ that he felt thet A higher and better usd could Da eatabltshed for khe prc~~artyfand that the location w~e very prominent, ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLIINNII~G CUMMx98I0N, Auguet 10~ 1973 13•'gp~ CONUITION1lL _U8B PERMIT N0. la 41 ( cont' d b~inp in th~ lront ysrd o! the indu~tzia'. •rea, snd ~~ 6-lr~ot,wall na px~poeud, could only hid• ~ poztion a! th9 ~torad iteme, but aoulA not hid~ aaat;~olding and litter• whiah ware taller ~he-n 5 leatt ane] thet this th~n would pr~~ant a vory un~ightly •ppe~rance. The Commission inquirod wh~ther iti would ba at any h~lp at 'ch~ Commi~ei~»n pro- hibit~cl ~tor~ga dbove 6 ~eat. Mr. Provin, ~.n rebuttal, atatad thAt hie company haci been buoinews for 20 yesr~, and during chat tl.m~a Chey had never had any ^aa!loldinqi thst tihe rseaon that th~. •ite wnr ~eleoted woa becauae th.ey, too, took pride in their busir~eo~t that th~y ~ltlnnsd to have tl-e wall ono cauroe hiqher the~n 6 feae in ordt~r to meke eura th~~~ a~verything wa~ ehielded lrom vie+w~ thak thdy prid.~d themeelveu ir~ mAi.ntaininq a vexy attractlve oper~tiont tl~at the wauld da at lee~~ the min{mum roquirad, snd in the c~-ae o! lendwcapiny they would prov~ide mnre lhan xaquizadr that it wae haped they wau].d be aUle Co expand~ and that wee thU xs~eon !or con~i.dering th:: adjt-cent• pro~ertyi thr+t Chey also proposed ta have a qreeter a~tbaok t:~en requl redt and tha~t they would completaly encloae the operation with a 6~toc~ plus mda~t~r.y' wa~l. The Commiaeion t:~en inquired ne t.o the bu~k oE the rooting wor.k that w~s don~ ~ wheraupor~ Mr, Provin nteted that moet of their b~it~inese wns ofPice type ro~fic-g with a an:ell emourit of reeidentials that thay ~41d n~t atore the matarial un Che promiees becauee moet of the joba were ao larye, they h+-d thm material $tiipped to the site rnther thak havinq it deliverad to the atoraqe yard and latar ht~ulins~ it to tha eit9, nnd only where thAy w~re doing individuel homes did tihey hdve the material haule8 to tho etnrdyo areat and ~hat they aou:.d store thai~- trucke, and forklif~:s ae wel.l aa aome asQhair. matieri~+ts~ ~nd that the forklifts coulc! be con- verred ta 30 feet. THE HEAI2ING WAS CLOS~;D. Commiasioner Flexbst obaerved that aoon vi.ewinq the plane ~ubmitted, it would appear that these were about the best that had b~en submitLed fc r a similar typ9 ox operation, aince they were attempting t~ protect kh~ surrounzl.ng environs of Che industri~l araa t and that it met the inter-t uf tha zon3.ng oL ~irtance ~ 2oning Supervisor Charles Robertg noted that there was annther contractor's ekor~ r~ge yard in Placenti~ soukh of Orangethorpe Avenue wherein the front of that facility was very nicely done, and if the propos~d development were compl9te~ in a similar m~nner it would be P very nice d~ '~r>meat~ however, there were other contractox ataraqe yards which b.ad developaa ~~ in the County which were vary iir~attractiva. Commissioner Eierbat offered a moti~n, secondad by C,onimisaloner Allzed, and MOTION CARRIED, that the Planninq Commisnio:-, in cannec~ion with an Exempti.on Declaration Status zoquest, finds and determinea that the proposal would have na significant environmental impact, and therefora, recommands to the City Council that no Environmental Impact 5L•atement is necesAary. Commiasione~ Herbst oEfernd Resolution No. PC73-193, and moved for its paear.ge and adoption, to qrAnt Petiticn for Conditionnl Uee Permit No. 1421, ~ubj~ct tc ,.ondition~ an~ the a~ipulations of the petitioner that an additlonal courae would be adcled to the top af th~ required 6-foot masonry wa1J. and thAt the sto=age r,f materials would aot be higher than the wall enclosure. (See Reaolut~on Book) On roll call the foregoiny ~eaolution was pasaed by the followinq vate: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allr~d, Farano, Gauer, :lerbet, Kir~g~ Rowland, 5e~ymocr. NO~S: COMMISSIONERSs None. ABS~HT: COMMISSIONERS: None. RECFSS FOR DINNER - Commiacioner Herbat moved to recesA for diainer, Coeamiesion~ar Rllred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRiED. The meet~ ^S :.ceESed at 5:35 p.m. RECONVENE - ChRirman Gsuer reconvened tk~e meetinq at 7: 32 p.m. all Coamiaeionere being preaent. ~ ~ MINUTB~, CI'1`Y PLANNING COMMIS3ION, Auqu~t Z0, 1973 73-503 TENTATIVS Ml-P 0!~ - D~V~LOPER~ CALPROP COIIP., 5456 McConnal~ Avanu~, Loe TRA~T N0,_,_ 84C4 11n9eloe, Ca. 9006~~. E~VOIN~FR~ VZ'A:, Z301 Campus Qriv~, irvine, Ca. 9~664. Suhj~at prAp~rty, loaated on th~ west ~ide o! Itnp~rial Highwny, appzoximstdly 400 leet eouth of 8snta Ans CRnyon RoaA ~nd containinQ npproximate].y 19 acrea, ~.e pro~orad for ~ubdivi~ion into 1.52 R-x reoned lots, zoning suQervisor Charlea Roberts rAView~d thm lou~tian a! nubject property and praviou~ ~.oaing dctione, noting thdt the propo~e~d trsot wou'ld subdivide prop~rty tormerly pr~eanted in tw~ phaee8 bat v+hioh wse now propoo~d to be Qevelnp~d a~ ohe pha~~r *h~t n aondicion of City Council Re~solutio~ 71ft-36 approv~nq Condiei~~nal uee Parmit Nu. 1202 requireo thAt the nd~acont eroa to the wo~t o~' ~ub~ect pxopArty be developed R~ a^pecia]. recrei-tion Araa com- m~nai~ng r+ith the thizd phA~e ot developmont sr~d compl.~ted in tt~e fourtt~ phaee o! the PItD, hoWever, in viaw o! the fact tt~at the~ pdtit~oner was combining thy third snd ~o~ar.th gheea~ under one final. phaeo, the roquired special recrea~ti.~n arsa sl~ould bs obtabliehed pzio:- to dpprovnl of linsl track maps o~ iseuance+ o! buildisiq permite. Mr. JamoA McCArthy, repreaonti.ng V~'N, the engir~eorp, ap~eare~d bePoxe the Commi.saion and 0tsted th~-t LI1J Report ta the CommieBian ha-d been received, end they would cancur and oompl,y with sll canditions u~s aet lorth by thQ Inter•- dc~partmsntal GQmmittee. The Cammission inquized whother the deve~oper Mrauld ave eny objections t~ providing the reczeation facility prior to the igeuance of +~ bui].ding permit. Mr. McCarthy 6tated that the reprea~ntative of tY~A devAlaper, Mr. Ring~, w~s riot preepsnt now, but it wa8 hia understanding thAt the developer would be agreee-ble to providing the reareation aree plans pzior to 1esuAnce of a build- ing perini t. Mr. Rab~rte n~ted that thia had r.ot been made a aond! tion af approval a£ the tract map, but wae en item which staff felt the Commiseion would wish to dis- cuas with the davdlopar. Furth~rmore, the Develogmont Servicas staff had sent a].etter to the developor indicating that :lt would be app~opriato ~o suk,mit plans Por the recreation are~ prior to the iasunnca of a buiYdinq permit for this phase, nowover, it would have to be completgd ~rior to cbtaining final bui3.dinc~ and zoning inapactions for thes phaeo, $ince the developar -aas now cumbinir_g Phe»os III and TV. In addition, ~nvironmental Impar,~ Report No. 74 had been Piled on aubject property and wae edoptod by the Ci.y Council on Dece~nher 19 e 1972. Mr. Robe rts thon '_ndicated on the Gei~eral Plan map th~ location of the prop- er.tz , nc.ti.ng the boundaries of the R-2, th~ locatinn oE the ::ecxeation area, .,nd tli~ area, w,iere R-1 zoning h$d been approved, indi.cating thet this was a 105-acre parcel with one°third to ane-half beinq propoae~l for develapmen~ for townhousea rnd the remain~er the privRtsj recrgstion ared anc~ the R~lr and that while tha R-1 development would be to the west of the reciaation ar~a, thero hRd boen no proposal to date to devQlop it, but that the developer had indi- cated he would ho presonting plana for the R-1 in a shor~ while. Commiasionu.r Saymoux noted that the recreation axea aould bo left in open spaca and maintained or it cou~d 'ne a~ark~typ9 ~rt~il developmentt whereupon Mr~ Robezta than noted that when this was vriginally pzegent~+d to tht~ City Council, it wa3 suqgeetud that it would be a" itch and putt" qolf coursa or some oLher type of recreetional use- anid plans to be approvc~c~ by the City Counci.l, and then read the oondition of appr~val by the C~ty Council. D~puky City Attor.r.ey Frenk Lowry note.L for th e~ommissfon that he had attendad a meating w~th tihe developers/sngineers while Mr. Roberta had baen on vacaL-i~n, regxrding the private recreational fa-cility, but since no precise plans wera available Dut eeveral alternativ3s w~re pxopoaed fox varioue ~ypes of na~ure parks, but there appearad to be eome lega]. proislems ex~sting ragarding drainage facilities on the prapeaty and the I reciee plana would have to be delnyed pend- ing xatistaction of thrse prob2ems, j.~lthouqh tbe daveloper sti11 i.ntended to eubmit the-m in ordex to comQly with the condition of approval of the condi- tional uoe pesmiC by the City Council, theee pr~ciee plans were not at~ailable at thir tim~. ~ ~ MINUT~9, ~ITY pLANNING COMMI$SION, ~-uqu~t 10~ 1y73 73^~04 T£NTA'PIVE M11p OF TRJICT NQ, 8404 (cont'd) Mr. Rabsrta india~t~Q thi• arx~n9ement miqht b~ aontrery to eha agr~~ment rsach~d with Calprop, snQ it oould work a~ a dolayinq •lf.+ct on the i~ruancs ot a buiidinq p~rmit. Mx. phillip Rinqo, Vico Prssid~nt ~~ C~lprop Corp., a~pp~eraQ b~P~ro tho Com- miseion end advis~d th~m thet they wsre in tha pr~ao~~ ot draMinq up th~ preciee plano ror ~h~ reor~stion are+u e~nd hed aseumsd Ch~t th~ condiL•ian of wubmiasion wau19 be upon approval o! the ~~e af the +~ro~, and the pzociso plans then woul~ be submitted pr,ior to the llling o~ a linal traab m~p or the ieeuence o! A building ~ermit, thexetore, they Nauld e-ac~d• to thaL azrang~- ment an3 hoped to raaolve the drainage problsm within w N~ok eo C~n day~. The Commisaion th0n inquized vrhether ~t ~e-~ tho intent c! th~ developsr to camplete a~nd eubmit ~he preciae plans pi.tor. to aomplstion o! 1~ha~er IYI and iVi whereupon NSr. Rinqo etAted it wae hi.e understdnding th~-t thoy hnd aqreod L•o eubmiee~on af preciee plane prior to the isaunnae n! a buildinq parcnit on Phase ziI (now the findl phesa) and the~t Lha "special recrmation araa" would bo aompleted pr~or to Ptnal building ~i~d zoning inspoction on ~hie final phe-se• end it wae their intent to meet that agreament. Mr. Rinqo then raqueetad clerificati,an ae to L•he reaommended Condi.tian No. 5 reyc+rding the CC&R's on this pltae~ which they propoeed to nnnex to Ph~.sea I arid II and incorporate them intc the CG&R's which h4d been Pilr3d and approved by tho City Attarney. Daputy City Attorney Frt~nk Lowry e+dviaed the Commission i;hat ~he CC&R' e refer- red to had baen approved by the City Att~rney's office and that thir condition would have to be comp~ied with, incorporetiing it into the Ft~at two phaeea and recorded concurrent].y aith th~ linal tract map to ~he eatisfectinn of the Ci~y Attorr~ey'A off.iee. Mr. R.ingo then noted that a furth~r conclition requirod the eubmieeton of F1ocr plans and PI$VAt~O1lA, however, glans for this ~hase of the developmeat wculd be the same as Yhdse II, and he would like to stipulate that the plana would be the same as those approvad under Pt~ase II and requeetad the-t they be a~p- proved at this time. Mr. Roberte noted that the ~~ty Council approved floor plane nnd elevati~ns, and this could be acccmpSic~hed at th~ ~ime the Couacil eaneidered Tentative Ma~p of Trach No. 8404, in ~he same manner as tnep hAd ~one in the past. Commisaioner Seymour offered a motion, eaaonde~ by Gommissiouez Herbat and MOTION CARR7.E9, to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 84fl4, subject to the following condi~iana: (1) That the approval of Tontative Map of Tract No. 8404 is granted subjact to ttie completion of Reclaseification Nn. 70-71-13 ~nd Conditional Uas Pezmit Nu. 1202. i2) That ahould th~s subdivision be developed a~ mure than one eub- division, ~ach aubclivi.aion thereaf ah+~ll he submitted in tenta- tive form fux approval. '3) That all lote~ wittiin this tract shall be aerved by underyround util~Ciea. (4) That a final tract map of subject property shalZ be aubmitted to and approved by the Ci~y Councix nnd th~n be recor3ed in •.n~ offfcd o~ the Oranqe County Recozder. (5) That any ~ropoaed convenanta, conditions, and reatr3ations ehall be aubmitted to and appxo~red by the City At~.orney's Office prioz to City Counoi~ approval of the fina~l txact map and, furLher, that the approved cqnvanants, conditions and restric~:tiona ehall be r~cnrdod cor.cu~rrently with the final trect map• L.J ~ MIN~TE3, CITY PLANNINt7 COMMI88ION, AuguaC 20, ~973 7~-505 TENTl1'PIVE MAP OF TRACT NU. 8404 (cont'9) (.E+1 "n~C pzior to ti.linq the lin+~l tzaat mAp, the applicant eh~ll oubmit to th~ City Attorney !or approval or d~nial a aom~lete eynopsi~ o! the K~xopo~ed funatioti~ing o! the c,pArating aorNoration includin~, but not limite3 to, tha arti.als• of incorpora~i,on bylaws, propoead methods o~ manegement, bandinq ca in~ur~ mAia~- t.enance of common propart,y mmaybdeeixe9to pr~t~cth~h~hCi~y~,liCe ~-,ation a~ th• City 7-ttorney ci.tizena, a~nd the purchapars o! thA ~roj~ot. (7) That. atreot nsmes ehe-11 be approved by Gha City o! Ana~heim pxior ~o eppr~val of. a linal tract map. (s) Thut ths ownor(s) o! eubjeat property ahall pay tn th~ City of Anaheim the ap~,roprl.atQ Park And Rocroation in-lieu toes Rs determined to bA appr~pr~ate by the City Council, said fee4 to be paid at the time tha building permit ia iesued. (y) Tht-t drainaqe ot enid property ehatl be di.sposad af. in a mannor ea~tiafactory to the City Enqine~r. If, in *he preparation of the site, eufllai~nr-t grading is required to necoesi.tate e grading permi.~, no work on qr.adinq will be parmitted between Octobez 15th and April 15th iinlsse all zequired off-eito drainag. fa.cilities havo b~en inetalled b.~d are aperative. Poeitive Aaeurar~ce eY~all be provided the Ci~y that auoh drainac~s facilitiea will be cnm- pleted priar to October 15~h. Neceesary right-af-way f~r o~f-eite dxainage ~acilities ahall be dedi.aatied to the Cfty, ar the City Council shnll have initiated condemnatl~n praceedinqe therefar (the cost4 oP which shall be borne by the develaper) prior to com~nencemgn~ of grading operations. The required dsainaqe facili- ties shall be of a sixe and typ~e sufficient to carry runoff w+~ters originatinq from higher properties throuqh s~id property t~ ulti- mate diepoeal. ae approvod by the City Er~gineer. Said drai.nnye fac:ilities ahall be the first itam of conetruction and shnll be completed dnd bo functional throuqh,out tha tract and from the downstream boundary of the groperty tr~ the ul.timate point of d3s-- posa2. prior to the issuanas of any final. building inepoctions or occupancy permite. Drainaye district reimburaeme~nt aqreements may be made avaiZable to Che developers of said property upon thair requast. (10) That graciing, exca~~ation, dnd ~11 other construction ~ctivitioe ohall be oondur_tad in a~ich a manner so as to minimize the~ possi- bility of any si1~ originakinc~ from this projeat b~inq carried into ~he santa Ana itiver by sturm water originating fr.om ar f]•ow- ing throuqh this project. (11) That a~l. publ; c streets shall have a max~.mum gracie not in exceas of 12 per cent. ~12~ submittodrtoland appravedabyUthefCityhCouncilapriorutoBapproval.e ot thb finnl tr~c:t map. (13) The developmer-t plrsns £ar the prQposed "apecial recreatior, aren" shall be aubmitted to the Planning Commisaion and City Council for approval prior to iaeuance of a building permi~ for unita of Tzact No. 8804, and saia recrea~i.~r- area ahall be complated pzior tc+ fina-1 building and zoning inepectlons of the liv~iny units in this tract. ~ ~ MINUTE3, CITY PLANNIN~ COMMI5fiI0N, Auyut~t 20, 1973 73-506 EIVVIRONM6NTAI. IMPACT ~ RLADVERTx3EU CONTINUED PU9LIC NEARING. RALPH E. AND REPORT P~O. 97 VIOLA E. P04i, 2039G 9anta Ana Canyon Road, Ansheim; Ca. `~ ! - g2806 AND ANAI{EIM HIGI,B, INC. AND T~XACO VENTUN~S, INC., RECLA83IF"ICATION 380 Artaheim Nilla Ro~d, Andh~im, Ca. 42846, Ot:z~ars~ N0. 7~-74~11 SOUTNWEST PROPERTIF9, INC., a/o Timothy Unger, P. 0. ~~ Dax 5387, Aranye, Ca. 926G9, Agent~ proporty dWSCribo~3 CONDITTONAL CISE asi An irregulaxly-eha~~ed parcel ut land coneieting c~f PERMIT N0. 1415 npproxin~axely 18 acrae havinq a lrontage ^f appr~x~marely ~~ ~ 814 laot on the emet ridc~ of Anaheim H111~ Road, heving TENTIITIVE; MAI~ OF d maxtmum dep~h of npproximately 97S faet., and being TRACT N0. 84U9 locatod approrimetely 310 teet south of tha centerllne -~ of Santa Ana Canyon Ro~d. *'roper.ty preeently clubaiflsd R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. RFQUES'1'LC CLA5SIFTCATI ONs R-2, MU1.TT''~F-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZON~. REQUESTEG CONDI'~IONAL USE: L~STABLISH A 119-UNIT PLANNED RE57DENTIA.I~ DEVELOP- MENT, WAIVING (A) MTNIMUM AUILDING SITC ~1REA, (B) MINIMUM BUILGTNG STTE WIATH, (C) REQUIRCD FRONTAGE ON A DEDICATED STREET~ AND (D~ REQUIRED MASONRY WALL ABU'~TTNG A SxNGLC-FAMrLY RESIDENTIAL 7.ON~ BQUNDARY. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DFVE;LOF'ER: SOUTFiWL~ST PROPERTIES, .`.NC. , c/o Ti.mothy Unger, P. O. Box 5387, Orange, Ca. ~2669. ENGIN~L:R: E.rvin Engineering, 729 South Park Vi~w Street, L~s Ar,yeles, Ca. 90U57~ pi•opoai.n4 to aubdivide aubject property into 119 R-2 p1Ann~d residential development lots. Twenty~fivP pereone indicated their preaence in opposition. Zoning Superviyor Charlec Robert~ reviewed the lc~cation of subject property, uses eatablished in close gzoximity, and the requeat t.o reclasaify subject pzc,~er~y from the R-A to the R-2 Zone, with waivers of the requirement that lots front on a d~dicated a*reet, minimum building ~ite area~ minimum bui.lding site width, and re~uired 6-foot maaonrf wa~l ubuttiny a aingle-family rosidential zone boundary, to permit the establishment of a 11H-unit, one aixd twe-story planned reaidential davelopment. Mr. Roberts then noted that aubject parcel was comprised of two Qox'ttons of land; that the first portion, which was the weaterly^most parcel, had s resolution of intenti to C-1 approved on DQCember 12, 1967, wh31e ~he 3ecorid parcel had a resolut•ion of intent to R-H-22,000 approved ori J~xne 26, 1973~ th~t the petitiuner propnsed to establish a planned residential developr.ient comprised cf individual units attached in cluetexs of three to six livinq units, forminq a"townhouse" typo complex ~vith ].ot sizea ranging from 2050 aquare feet to 2898 square .fet~t, and each living unit havinq indiv3dual ownership with common ownership a£ the common open space and central recreational facilitie~;; ttiat th~ net density pz~posed would be approximately 10.20 iwelling units per acre with a n~.t coverage of approximately 34~aJ that che breakdoan for tne types of, units and ground fioor. nrea and living arPa was depicted in the Report to the Commission (on file)t that vehicular accesa and circulation was pruposad by a single loop street 25 foet wide to serve the entire project, a~nd access to the livinq units would be provided by Chis 25-foot wide ).oop dri.ve, with atub ends ~o servo units on the perimeter aiid central intezior of the aite~ that two emergency exits were ~.ocated cn the stub enda of the main loop drive st the riorth rsnd west ends of the develop- montt that a total of 522 parking spacea was proposed, which included two epaces in a garaqe fnr each unit, with two aidi~ional open spaces on a 20-foot dsivoway apron for each unit, while 46 additjonal open spaces were proposed in guest park- icig areas located throughout the site, makinq a total ratio of 4.38 epaces pe~ unit inclusive of the garage, drivewmy apron, and guest parkin~~ nrear th~~ *_!?p wester].y boundary of the proposnd projoct raQUld be located a rlistance of 50 feet from Ar~aheim Hills Road and would '~e pruviding tho zequired scenic corzidur sot- backt that the dev~lopment would be bufPered from Llie roadway by a landscaped bAxmF and ~hat the pe~itioner was requasting w~aiver of the required maaoziry ~+a11 al~ng the aoutherly boundary due to the steep terrsin. ~ • MINUTI~S, CITY pI~ANNING COMI+aIBSION, 7lugtl~lt 20r 197:i 73-507 ENVIRONM~NTAL IMPACT REPOAT Nn. 97, REC'LASBIFTCATYUN N0. 73-?4-I1, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1415~ AND_PENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. t3409 (Continued) Mr. Roh.rts furkhar not~d that each living unit wao U.ing provided r:'`~ a prx.-at~ pati.o deck rsnging in sisa lrom 100 l:0 2~0 ~qusre laat, to be ].oca~sd at thd zeer af th~ uni~i thdt common open rpnce and rucre~-tionsl arase wmrs l~ceted throughout the project with walkwayy And l.andecaped etrips adjacent to the individual unjkst thaL in additxan to thc+ 1U~0-~qusre toot racroational centar which wee pro~ab~d to be loaat~ed in th~ centar ot the aite, th~re would be t~wo other opeit apaoe axeae~ ancl that ttie plane ~'uzther ind~.catad trsrh ~tnrdqe bine ~rould be+ locate3 throuqhour tha eitR which wauld servo individual qroups oi unite~ said trds;~ etoraqe bins to be located adjacent to tho main driveway throughout tha 01kr~, which the ~anitatl.on Divieion oYficiale lndicated wauld ~rovide adequate naceae dA well ae Qroviding !ar lixe protoction noede o! the site. Mr. Roborte, in concluei~n, etated there were two ieaues tncinq the Commi~sion: wae the zaning appr~pXiate end was the type of developmant acr,eptabin, howa~~er, the basic question was wheL•her or not tha R-2 xoning roquest wae appropriate at this ].ncatian. Mr. ,7ames Darisic, V.ice Pr~eident of Ane.heim Hille, inc., nppeared betore the Commiseian and advi.sed them that it wou~d h~ more approgXiake to havo the pro ject ~ngineer Tim Ltnqer, explain in detail what wee proposed to be c~oiie un this c~ite, and t,~at they would first like to projecti aomo slides of the pro- posal. Mr. Unger, renreaenting Southweat Pznperties, the davel.oper of the project, appeared befure the (:ummiasioii snd qavo eome bac!cqraund informal:i~n about hie company and wtiy they were interested in developing thi0 site with a planned residential devel4pment si:ic~e there were only two or three in the OrAnge County area that could ba conaic~ere@ simil.ar in concept~ tha~ the sike in Anahaim H17.1s wae selected, anr~ they intenaod to retain as many of the a~vacado trAea as poasiblet that ttiey knew there would be pr~blems with the S.A.V.I. channel~ that si.nce a Fortion of the property had a, resolutian of intant to C-1 uso~, it was felt that aomeone miqht possibly project med.ium to high denef.ty for that property, howc~ver, ~tdff had indicated a numbsr og problema with the site, and duri.nq aeveral meetings with ataff inembers, thase probloms were rev.tawed~ that Waltez Richardson Associates, arahitecta, and La:sg-Wood, landscape archiL•ecta from Laquna Beach, were selected to provide the proper aetba~k ooncept so that they coul.a preeer.ve the rur~l flavor of the si.te and provide continuity through- out the pr~.iecti that a uumber of m~etinqs were held with s~aff where it appear.ed thero were a number of problems with the site, one be.ing accee~ for the proper~y to thd east, ano+-her the problem of storm drai.ns for much of th~e acreage to the east of subject properScys that in order to appruach the ~torm drain problem, storm drain £~ea werc prapoeed wherein they wer$ proposed to provide the storm drains at their cost~ and after much diecusaion, it wa.s detarmined that th8 most logical manner to reaolve thi~ was to provide access wi~h a 64-foot roadway ad~ace,nt to the S.A.V.I. channelr and that they wonld of£er to dedicate a 54-foot widQ roadway for the property to thg soutY~ and southwest which wn9 proposed to be developed Sn half-acr.e, single-family residential uaes. Mr. Unqer r.oted that the site plan on a superficial basis had certain ale~menta that had to be takdn into aonsi~ezation - the Scenic ~orridor alonq Anaheim Hills Road, 4'iich req~iired a 50-focat buildi.ng setba~k- so they plAnneB around that witl: an open c~pac~e aectian to thA rear of the units in order to enjoy this open spmce - aingle-family un~ta althouqh part of n condominiums that the la~nd- acape plan indicP*•c~d no encroachment into the setback except at the pa~iot that to the nozth oE the public ::oadway there were a number of avocado trees which wauld be anved to preaerve tha overa~ll envxronmentt that the area to the east would have very Zittl~ oartt~ moving since this was r~latively f].t~t~ that the eucalyptus tr~es in the area would be left i~atact at the entrdncet and that they planned to retain an9 maintain the avocddo tYees at tho northerly and northweat bouadarieat aad ahile d number oP the tre~se miqht not t,e trnnsplant- able, they pronosed to planti additionnl treea in their pl+~ce. ~ • MJNUTL~S, CITY PLANNING COMMISaION, Augugt 10, 1473 ~3'"gd3 LNVIRONMICNTI-L IMPACT REPORT Np. 97, RECLA887:1*ICATION Nn. 73-74••l.l, CONDITIONAI~ USE pERMiT N0. 1~:15~ AND TENT_ATiVB MAP Q1~ TRACT NO 8409 (Cc+ntiinued) ____ Mr, Erneat Adamg, .rapreoankinq th• architect, Wdltor Richaraeor~ Aoeocia~ted, appear~ed b~lor~ khe Commi~~ion •nd ~tatad that an outs' ~dinc~ lnr~dec:apa erahi- teatural firm, Lang-Wood, repro~~ntad by Mz. KAn w~oa, would gl.vo the oharsoter o! the Lypa of ~anfiscdpi.nq and architocture thay were propoding ae to opan apacmt thaC thay, Ae architoota~ hed work~d wf~th not only plenning conaepte puC real ~~rojacts, nnd then reviewed ths loo~ z•oad pr~pooe~ fram the entranoe, togethor with the 1mnAACnpinq and the projact with buildings arranqed in rows approxi- mAtely 50 geet in dapth, or rha length of the Councll Chaenberi thet open apaoe nrea~s wero praposed to weave ir and out, aud than indiaatAd on the plane poated on the easC wall wh~re t}ie apen ures would k~m, notiny it •xtended about 30d faet, or the dis~ati-ce of four tim~s tl~o longth oti ~he Council Chdmber; that ths huild- inqs fronting an the atreet wou13 be eAt back 20 feet eo thst trom wsl.l to w+-11 the diat~nce would be 75 leot; or l~i timee tha l~ength oP ttie C~u~ictl Che~a-b~rl ~h~-t the reason r.hoy were xb"le ta develop ao much opon apace in thie pro~ect - unlike .tn singlo-family reaidential eubdivieione - was becaus~ tfioy had lined up th~ builainqe so thdt tYsey would ghare co:nn~on sid~. walle, wharees the eide yezds of R-1 aubciiviaions were waeted apacat that th.ey pr~posed oluetere in tha center of the aitvr ~hnk t,hexe waa an equitable amount of opon space tor each unit with the patio area groposeif on the gzeenbelt e-nd the entrance eide of thes buildinga would be frum ~he+ patlos~ and that half the uni~e wauld be over the garayes. Chairman Gauer inquixed whather tnie concept was similar to the to4-nhouse devel- opment in University Park where thero were clustara ~f five~ whereupon Mr. Adams etated this would bA ~imilar and ~ome of the clu3teze would be five whil~e some w~oulc~ be legs . Slides were then ahown of the aito and adjoining single-fam~.ly proportiea already developed and other similar davc~lopmonts for comparison purpogeA. Dtr. Ken Wood, representing I,anq-Wood, propos~-d laitdecape drehitects of the development, appeared be£ore the Commissian and stated that a gzeat~r part of the lar.dscaping pr~ject concept was inter7.aced within thQ pro}eat. for whfch it was designed in th~:t mannor on an equal scale~ that one of their first concerne were the existing trees, both the avocado grove ancl the eucalyptus treeat that they were fully awaxe of the fact that they could not save all of the avocado trees becauas these trees weze extramely temgeramental and cauld not be xe- located, but they had propoeed to retain and main~~~i.n a portion of the grovesr that he had aeked the owners to purchasa an additional 200 trees to amplify the rural chsxacter they p oposed to n~aintain throughout the aite and t~ help ~ave the charaater lost by the remaval of the exiating grovea= that they had three baeic characteristice in the landscape conr.~pt: 1) ~he Scenic Corri.dor setback requirement which Was detniled in the site plan and to continue the er.isting landscaping alonq Anaheim Kills Road, creatinq a depth usin~ the same trees, shru'~s, etc., aince these would provide an additional noise barrier for the rQaidents in the interior or the areat 2) the sec~n~i element wov.ld be the tres-acape which one saw wr.en ono was driving into the pro~ect between the buildinqs on a snall scale, with canopies f.or entrar,ces inta the in~div~dual unitsJ nnd 3) that a greenbel~ open space area was also propoaed, gi.ving a more open aspect, and ataff neqlected to evaluate the ma.rket price proposed which would ineure the intoqration of their ~lan; and that the price range eP these units ~aould ba from 543,000 to $52,000, havi.ng unit sizea of z400 to 2200 aquare feet. Cheizman Gauer noted that he was fully aware that everyone was intereeted in Sesv~lop~-en.t in the Anaheim Hille area, and he wanted to give ~veryone present en opportunity to revi.ew the proposal, however, if there were no new ideas to preeent, he woulc! suqqee~ that t.h~ ~ppasition naw be~ heard. Mra. Mr~ry Dinndo.rf, ~.31 Ld Paz Way, a~ eared before the Commission, notinq that ahe Was President of the ~anta Ana Canyon Impro~~ment Aseacia~tions that ahe wauld like to preaent to the Commisaion petitions ai.gned by 98! of the home~ ~wneza in the three sinylo-fdmily tract~ to th~ wost of the propose~ retoning, proteating this actien~ thnt ather than the xeasons thak ha8 been consistently sta~ted -. fore the qoverning body regardinq the overc9evelopment in the cnnyon, ahe would like ta empllasire the following: 2'hat uccording to tha~ staff report, ~ ~ MINUTL~S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSI4N, ~uyutt 20, 19%3 '13-~5Q9 ~NVIRQNML~NTAL 7MPACT REFORT N0. 97,~ RLCJ.A83IFICATION NO. 73-74-11, CONUITIONAL t)SE PERMIT N0. 1A15, AND ~'ENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 8409 (Coniinn~^ d) , the General P].an enviai.an~eA low-Aanoity reoidenti.e-1 fnr thl.e aros not ta •x~ev,d 7 unite per ecze~ thnt apos'oval o! this sone chattge f.or thiR psopu.~Q d~velop- mant would permit 10.~ uni~:o p~z aore, or spproximately 33-1/3t more than •oaepteble, and the continuinq pelioy of precedent-aetting appr.oval o! higher dan~ity in dirocC oppoeition tu tne Genera~l Plen wou11! mmke the Plan inaperable dnd moze and mare raqueaCs tor rer.oninq to allow devnlopment of mare and moXe dwelling 1111~rfl would be the rul~, not ~ha •xceptiant that the thaory roqardinq o!!-etreet parking Por tour cara to a unit with on-~street parking !ox 46 caro w+~~ ~uet that - a theory - a lot o! a maximum eixe o! 2890 aquare leet with a livinq area o! iSGH equaro feot would lind khe owner utilizi.ng tho qdrAg~+ !or etorage of extra family treaeures, the drivaway then being ueod tor. pn.rkiny - ao tlhe fact thxt 46 on-etre~t parkinq epaaee foz gueeta wsu groaaly ineclequatet that the pzice quo~ed ~f $52,000 fnr a 2000-equare foot condominium appeared som~what questionable sinca Villa Park was eelling s•ingl~~-femily fiom~s in that pr.iae rnnge - why couldn't the snme type of home~ b~a conr~tructec1 on eubject ~raperty; that ~he exiating resolution of intent !or C-1 on 9 dcree w~u13 be more accHptable ae long ao tho rc~mainfn~ acreaq~ waa retainod for R-~ 22,OA0 zonl.ng, and thl.s, theii, would preclude d low-tYpe commArcial devel~puiant~ that she aould repeat the probleme of traffic, smog, noise pollution and L•he ger~err~l pxoatitution of the land, bowev~er, ehe ha~d yet to soe a proiect completdd +:har resembled the archltect's tonclerinqs - even though it looked good on pdper, would it loak q~od on the site~ that the develo~,~~r could anci ehould be made tu Work within tho ~uid~linas aa aet larth by tho ~naheim General Plan, but they were moze moti~vated by economics than any benevolont reasona to improve ti~e canyon ainao THEY DO NOT LIVE TFtEREr dnd that she would lik~ t~ see eame good Pt-ith expressed by the Cxcy ~y hevinq some oE the lower denaity devalopment under constructi~n before tho entiro General Plan was acrapped and the Anaheim H~lle area would be inunclated with medium and hiqh•-denaity tracts. Mr. Roland Kzuegpr, 561 Peralta Hilla Drive, representinq the Pernlte Hill.a Impravem9nt rissociation, appeared before thA Commisaion and n~ted that althoixgh th~y would not be ~:rectly affected by the pro~osed development, it being ~arther down the road, they were concerned with development in tho canyon as a whole, and his primar.y eoncern ~:ould be reitera~~d as Mrs. Dinndorf had atat.:d becau~e th.e City had spent many th~ueands of dollars f~r. a General Plan in the canyon and the petitioner was again asking for anothgr chanqe in the Plan, therefore, he want.ed to lcnaw ~hy ~he City Apent so much money on a Ger-e:ral Plan if it did not. intend to abide by iti that he didn't Soubt tha~t thia would be a vory attractive lookinq development, however, the Ger.eral Plan also projer:ted commercial usea, and if comnercial deveiopment were propoaed and developod as r~eidential use, where would commercial facilitieA be availal~le for r.esidents in the area if L•hese commercisl areas were oontinuously being delete3. und the property had a resolution of intent for the R-H-22,000 Zono, ther~fore, if aubject petition were approved, this wou13 then nagate all oE the projections of the General. Plan; and that if the City ha3 any integrity or valut~ of the G~ne:cal Plan~ then the City should abide by it n-ore closely than it had in the past. Mr. ~amea G. Stroop, 412'1 Waik Street, Bell, California, appeared before the Commiseion, noting that he owno~l two acreg about 8Q0 feet down the road from aubject propert.yt 'that Lhe prupoaed deve~opment would create a traf~ic problem at bath Ansheim Nills Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road aince ~nly one acceas wrss beinq propoasd aad more than 500 parking spaces were projected, whicli would mean 500 cara would have to enter and exit thie one area, one-half makir.g left- hand turna to gain entrance into the development, which wou].d further acYd to a ~txaffic problem for Anaheim ~1111s Road sinco it was the onZy road into the hills itaelf, and with all of the pxojected and approved residential develop- ments farther along said roac~, thi~ would create quiL•e a trafEic problem. Furthermore, since this land was practically flat, trere woul~ be a drai~nage problem with ~:he garsgest that there woulrl be a further Qroblem as fr~r as the dra~n~nge from awimmir.q poala during n heavy raint that he had lived in that area for 20 years and he knew the drainaqe problem even without a heavy rain, and that as development occurred on the proporty, the drr.inage problem would be qreatly maqnified. Furthexmore, he felt the recreation area nropoaed was too amall for ~uch a yarge development, and he felt La Paz Street ahnuld be extenc~ed acroae the street fox additional exiting for theso unita. ~J ~ MINUTFB, CI7'Y PLANNING COMMIASION, Auqu~C ~U, 1973 73-510 E'NVIRONM~NTAL, IMPACT REPORT N0. 97, RBCLASBIFICATYON N0. 73-74-11, CANDI'~IONAI~ U~E PBRMST NU. 1415, ]1ND TENTA'rl'VI: MAP OF TRACT NO. 84U~ (Cont~,nued) Mr. L+~xry Wolte, 20256 9snta Ana Canyon Roa~, appedreA bafore th~ Commis~ion iii opporitio~-, notinq that he re~id~d in s 0100,000 hama up the hilx~ that prior to puzvhnsing hi• home, he h~d revi~w~~f the Ci*_y'e mn~tax plen and took thio intu considaration belore p~roha~inq th~ proporty~ that tre-!!io lrom the pro- pas~d davelopmen~ wauld be very rerioue and rees th~t wey now ~rl.kh tew panpl• livinq up in the hill e-raa~ that drainag• lrom the pxopertiee, both ~ubject propsrty and thoae to tho enet, woula bs very diflicult, pa~rticulerly during tAa Nint~r reinnt and that cansideraticn ~hould bo giv~+n to theso leotdxe. ~'urthermara, the peti.tion~r had indicatRd thnt they proposed ta purchAVS 2C0 traeo, whil.a their p'lan indicated only 300 Craoo in total. Mr. 9em Anee11, 5521 Santn Ana Gmnyon Rodd, eppearad beforc+ the Commieeion and noksd tha~ although the prop~ned plen weo artractive and oukstan~ing, he clic~ not wmnt it in his canyonr that he had moved from on~ of theae neophyte concrete ereaa in Mi~eion Viajo to yet e-way Yrom apartm~ntc+t that when aondominiume moved into Mieaion Viejo there were so msny children that he could not live 3n the pln~ce. and M3ssicn Vi,ejo ~~xpanded 1n three years from a amall communlcy co ovdr 6,000 hames which wa a I~uilt d.round h~.m~ that he had moved .into the Santa~ Ana Canyon area because `.he Genb~~+? Plan prajeated a tota2 growth o! only 1.1,000 peoplet that he comp~imented the developar on the praposed pro~act, but. ho ak~i].,l did not rrant the development in the aanyont end ~hat half of the neiqhbore in the er~a had ~igned the petition in c~ppQeition to this propoeal. Zn addition, he could eee a need for hiqh~r danel.ty development S.n arena because a! th~ C11:y'e ind.uatrial yrowth, but he falt the C~lty ehould attempt to ~re.-erve the cenyon area~ nnd thac the water diatrict repreeentati.ve hr~d talkQd with them about e greenbalt along the rivor, and to keop ~hat part af Anaheim ae na~.ural as pqeeible~ theregore, he felt that the 3anta Ana Canyon area ahould be retained rathez thttn t.tsvir~g condominium housing in the Annheim Hills area. Mr. Adams, in rebu~tal, stated that thei.r calculation as to daneity wrss 8.4 unitm por gross acre, however, ~taff caloulated the de~s~ty per net acre~ thdt the roadway to this project wae 322 feet from Santa Anu Canyon ~toad, therefore, theze woul~] be adequate distance from the inter~ecti.on ,or accese to tha devel- oQmentt that in respect to comment,a made regardi.ng the storm drain, he would like to ~-tate that every drivewhy was provided wi~h a drainage to the 72-inch sto~m drain which the developer of the pxoject was paying Porr that the plans befoxe khe Commission indicate3 more than 300 tree~, an3 whan he mentioned purchasing 200 trses, these would be the 24-in~:h boxed trees, 12 to 14 feet h~.gh~ and that he wo»ld like Mr. Harisic to comment regarding thi.s pxoject ae 3,t zelateci to Anaheim Hills. Mr. Earisic appeared again beforc th~ Coma-ission and atatecl that there were othor poople in L-he audience who were in favor of the pr~pose3 pr~j~ctj that he would like to streas thAt they wera not trying t~ hide anythi.ngt th~at they hnd held mee~inqa wlth people in the Mohlex prive area and the ~ember~ nf the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Aesociation and hed presented !}ie same plan~ and slidae which the Commisaion had viewed~ thak he had done some research tu aee what other type of deve].opment could be coneidere8 and had mAt with other property ownars who wera contiguAUS to subject property and had several communicatior-s grom thems thaL• some time ago, prioz ta Anaheim Hills having acquirec3 th~ Nohl Ranch property, Mr. Nohl hacl obtained C-1 zon~ng for a poztion of aubject pzonerty, while the balanc.e of the proper~y was the Poh propoty= that he did not know why C-1 zoning had been requeatsd by Mr. Noh3., but Anaheim Eiflla ctid not ~~ael commercial developmsnt at the entrance wtould be dedizable+ after having epent over $600,000 to devalop this entrance, and it would agpear to be ridicu^ lou~ to destroy th~.s entzancei that they had retained thiQ property even after ha.vl,ng xaceived aeveral offers to aonstxuct gour-plex apartmente an the Froperty~ bu1: this, too, they felt was not desirab].9 far the entrance to the Anahe~.m Hil:'.s aree-~ that they had trlked w3th difterent buyera, but when they were approache<l by Southwest nevelopment Company, proposing a planned resic~ential develop~e~xt es preaented to the Commiasion, they fel~. this wauld be more ac~eptable= that thay did not wsnt to have the plan approved and later hdve to f.ace arqum~..+ta regard- ing landecapinq, and even though thoy were in the land planninq buainess, from the tims they hdd xoached an agreement Lhe developer propased Co rntain tha tree line and to praeerve as much o~ the exieting environment as po~sihle~ that he ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, C1TY PLIINNING COMMTS$YON, August 20~ 1973 ~3"~l•~, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPnRT N0. 97, RECLA&GTFICATION ~lU. 73-74-11, COtiDITIONAL U8E FIGRMIT NO. 14'15, AND TFNTI~TIVB MAp QP TRACT N0. 8409 Cont{.nued) ~,,,,^ did not know haw the Commioaion oould re~olve thm aocees probl.em to th• ~i~op- erti~~ ta tha ea~t, but one oP th~ aonoern• ep~eered to be the queatlon o! tra!lio~ that thaxe wse soma oonfuiiny tsik about tha avera-go dnily trnPfia aour~ts, but i! une coneidered dov~lopinq 63 R-1 home~ an thiA property, thia would m~an 6~0 trips pur d~y, whlio the townhouee would only inaroase thi~ tra!!io aounC to 714 per day, ar s 9~ in~reaee, whi2e developinq a poaction oP tha pro~erty !or aommeroial ueo~ wnuld incree~~ the tra!!ic to 140Q cars per A+~y, or more than taice thet lrom tha aonda~inium, an~ he did not feel the r~eldente o~! that arer wAnted that type of tra!lic, particularly oince two mA~or oommercial centera were approvod about e- mile kn the we~t at l~~~l,nri+al Highway snd Santn Ane Cnnyon Road, with the Yorba. cammerci.~~ pro~AC:t now boing procoA~ed !or davelopment st the southwadt corner ot that lnter.~: ~eL•ion, and ha did not leal it would be pz•c~cti.cal to have more ms jor commarcial c~ntere iti that araa~ that the~ propoaed flevelopmant would pree-enC leee of e~ problem to the sohou7. die~rict than any other singla~-family d~velopment aince this wou].d be geare9 to adult livinq an~tei ~hst o~].y a 33t coverm~qe wns proposed with tv~o and thxe+e-bq(iroom unitat that the price r~nge ~f. theae unita would ba k~etween $43,On0 and $52,U00, which would meen qu~al~.ty davelopment in Anaheim H111e suparior to ariything in north Orange C~unkyi and thAt the condominium develop- ment propnaed by American Hcusinq Guild was uriginally ~,raj~ct~d for congidez- ably leos, but their later calculetionb :lndi.cated the unitg would ranqe in priae ~rom 550,000 to $65~000, thor~fore, thia would be rather inexpensivA conc3ominium Ae~velnpment buC would a'lso meaa quAlity development !or Anaheim i~i11s. Commi.sai~ner Farano observed ~hat Mr. Barisic h~d talkec9 a great doal abouC altornstlvee ae to L-he C-~1 property, en!i that Scuthweat Propertiea, Inc. and th~ architect should be highly commended on ~he developmenr, as proposed eince it Nae one oP the most attractive Chet had boen pxesdnted to the Commieaion in aoma time, however, there w~+re some deeper problema to ool.ve, ~+articulArly the zo:~ing on the property~ S~11C8 he did not knaw what other alternatives other than cammercial c~uld bg propoaed on the C-1 pzoper.~yr that i.n 1971 the Commis- eion had an a~plication bef~re them far zoning properti~a around the Ranchhouse to C-1 zoni.ng in nxchange for the proparty having a resolution of i~ntent to C-1 zoning which waa part of subject propar~yt Y.ha~ the preaiclEnt of .Anaheim Hilla at thaL• time, Mr. William Stark, had stipulated and agr~ed he would f9.le ~s letter with the City Council to withdraw the C-1 zoning reaolution of intent an the property~ therefore, he could not see haw anyone could caneider thit~ potanti.al C-1 Properky or thlt R-~2 deve'lopment was a be*ter a~ternati.vo~ pa~r~ic~llarly s~tice he did IlUt ~ee thie as a trade-off s~nce the Commisaion had approved F.-H-22,000 zonin5 for al~. ~hose proparties when tbe Mohler ur.ive Annoxatioa was considered by the Planning Commi:+sion~ that he war~ not aware that Mz'. Sta~k had filed thi4 letiter since tY~e City Council had taken no f'ormal ecti~n, and according to the minutes when ~he C-1 zoning waa coneidered nround Clte Ranchhous~~, ~ir. Stark had oery definitely atipulated this, and the Com;nisgion ma8~s it a parL of the'.r zcsolution in recommandinq C-1 zvning L•a tihe City C~~uncil therefosa, th~.s probl~;m would hav~ *o be re~solved before any other consideration coul.d be qiven to the praperty. Mr. Bnriaic r~plied tha't since he could not rspeak for Mr. Stark, al.thouqh he had been a nembor of th~ Anahsim Hills' ataff, he wae fully aware of the eitua- t3,on but had n~t seen anything in writing except what the Devolopment Servi.cee Departmant had advised him about six months aqo re,garding a lett~r requesting the termination of the resolution of intent for C-2 on the 9-acre aite. Commiss~.oner Seymour ~hen read e:ccerpt~ from the Planning Commisaion mpeting of April 5, 1971, to confirm the atatemant made by Mr. Stark, ae well as the fact it hd8 bsen made a findinq in the reaolution recommenc~~nq aFproval af the C-1 2ane dr~und the ltanchhouse, and etated that alkhouqh he hRd .~ot rese~-roh~sd tho Council minute~ to see whether thie ahanqa had bsen effected, the~ro wad no intent to make tha 9-acre portion of aubjoct progerty C-1 since the Anaheim Hillt repreaentati.ve had etipulatied to termination of that resolution a~ intant. Mr. Berieic stated ~hat he had submi~ted a letter wit?~ subject petitior~ askino that the C~1 zoning be romoved £zom eubject property after having received dppzc~vt-2 ot subject petition. e ~ O MINU9:t• C].. NLANNING COMMI8810N, Auqupt 10~ 1973 73-51Z ENVIRONMENTAL IM~ACT REPORT N0. 97~ RACJ~~BaI!'ICIITION N0. 73-7~-11, CONDI[TIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1425. AND TENT!-TTVE M71P OF TR71CT NO. 8409 (C;ontiinuod) ,r Coma~iraioa~er saymour noted tha~ it aa~ no~. only a a~att~r. o! requeeti~iq the termination~ but it oould be a mett~r a! l~,qaliiy ~ tI~ere was a ettpulation ragardi.ng the aowm~r.cial zoning at th~ Rar,ohhou~a, and thit had bean inolud~d ~n ~h• motlon maQe sinoe the zep:~re~tativ~ o! Anaheim Hillo/Texaao V~ntus~~ haQ ~tipulated Ca thia et that tim~. Deputy City 1lttorney Frank I.ovrry notsd thdk i4 na a;;tinn hs~ bsen taken on t.~~ Yerslnssitioation o~ the raaolution ~~ intent to C-1 on eubjoot property, thi~ aould b~ hendled ae en admiai~t~ri+el action eo ~ezmina,~e this upon requo~r by the agent a! th• applioant, howmvm~, he wao not ruro how it woulc: alPevt th~a zoning o! th• prop~rty but it might atfoct the viewpoint o~ the plenninq Commiesion, and h• would hsve to revimw the r+inut~e ot t}-e City Council to ~e~ what action hsd laeen taken. Cr~mmis~ioner Fttrano obse~ve~! that ho wae not that axpert on muni~tpal law, but to h,im thi~ wa+~ a uommitmenk by Anahmim H111s, t-nd except Por any adminivterial aotion, khe C-1 aoriing juet did not extst Uy agr~eemont oP tho C-1 son.ing given f~r othmr prapez'ty on the Ranaht +~nd that in hie osti.mat:an, eccazding to the mir~u~es, the nrguments praeente~I by Mr. enr.ibic were rendercd fnvalid. Mr. Bazi~ic n~te3 that all he wt~s a~ttempting to do wnb point out t~ the Commie- sion that thera was a legal reeolution of intent for C~1 zoninq on the propexty and that ho had read t,he City Counoil minutda nnd had. not ~OU11c1 anythinq re- lerxl.ng to termination of said xesolution of intant. Mt. I~oNry obaerved that a xesolut,l.on of intent could only be canae:Lled ouk by enothor reeolution by the City Caun~il, and zegardleas of the atipulr-tion of tho applicAti~n, if not acted upon by tha City Council, the resolut±on of intent atill existed. Coatinued discusaion was held batwe,ar- the Go~nmipeion and the neputy City Attorney s•egaxdinq the motion by the Commiesioa regarding t}ie etipulation mAde Ay Mr. 3tark oP Anr-hGim Hills when reclassification r,f the Nohl Ranch homestead Wae considered by the Planning Commi~aion ln 1971, Commisaioner c~ar~no conalud- ing by atating that before the Pl~r-nin~ Commieaior~ could act, .i.t would appear to him that the first step would be to obtain a cleax dec~rmination ~e ta what aCtion the City Counc~il liad takan and the~ rationale and reasoning in pYe80~:`_.~- tion as well as ~uatificati~n that was pxeoentdd eince he felt that thie ir~f~r- matiori waR vita].ly necer~sarv befare the ~ommieaion ahould make a deciaion. TtiF. HEARING Yl~AS CLOy~D. Commisaioner ~`axano offercd a motion, second~d by Camm•lmaioner. S~ymo~.i^ to requeAt of the City Counci~ a detezminati4n of the lragal status of Reclassi- fication Na. 67-68-29. The Planning Commisaion the1~ discusse3 the moti~~n reqarding the reeoliition af intent to C-1 zoning on the property, auinmarized a~ Eollows: 1) need ta deter- mine Nhether action was taken by the C.ity Co~ncil which would 3etermine the type of star~d the Commission might takeJ 2) if the Ci~y Counctl minutes wese not clear er.au~lh, perhapc~ the stnff should pxeeen~ the concern oi the Com»is$ioa for clerifioatlon fram City C~uncil aince thoze appeared ta be some logality invulv~d, evon though teclinically the rec~alution o! intent no lonqei was val.id because ~f the one-yeer timo ~.imi~ati~~n estmblished fox comgletton of condi~inne and no requ.~st far exten~ioas of time hAd be+en request~d or qrante3f 3) ne.~d to have the zeaalution of intent Eor ~-1 toning removed from the property ba£ore action could be taken b},~ ±he Pl~nning Commia~ior-~ 4) whethex or not ~.he City ~Council Mau At a mind that thie ehould have reme!_ne~i C-1 nr whether it ehould bo converted b~ek to residantSal uaest and 5) tha~ sing].s~fa-ni~y resolution of intent zoning wae in effect on a partion cf the property, and tk~e trade~off fo~r multiple-lamily us~~ did not 1~ppear to bs a qood trade-of£ for the othar portion havinq a raeolutian of intent ta C~l. Comm~asianere Fera.no rn~3 Seymour. withdrow thair motion and r~econd. Mr. Robert~, in rpsponae to comments by Mr. Bdrieia, etate3 that a lr~ttc~x hsd bsen receivad grom 7anaheim Hiils on July I1, 1973a along with a requeet for ~he R•~2 zoning pe~ition, k~owever, it wae not as eimple as it would appear on tha ~urlace. and then xead tilie letter which sta~ted. th+~t revocation of the C-1 zaning wa~ requestied only upon approval of, tiie R-2 zonir~q. ~ r MINUTL~, CITY PLAliNING COMMIS9ION~ 7luquet Z0, 1973 73^$13 k,TiVYAONMENTl1L IMI~ACT RE~~OR'!' N0. 97r R6CL1-SSIP'ICATION NA. 73-'14-11~ CONAI:TION1-L v9S PERMiT NA. 1415~ AND T~NTATiV~ M]-P OF mRACT *10. 8409 (Contiausa~,_____ Gomwie~ion~~ seymour ' nquirAd wh~ther thi ~ w~o the i.ntAnt o! l~nah~~im Hill~ in the istter. i wh~r~upon Mr. Bc-ri.~ic •tated that thi• waa ~o. Comm~a~l~~ner 8aymaur the~~ ~tsd khat it woul,d nppear thet vrh~-tever Mr. 3tsr:c, t~reaid~n~ of Ana~h~im H~' ~.t tha tl.me ~aclaeei~icati~n ai thA Ran~'~ho~ise was r~~iglt~er~d~ atipulntec~ . uo validiky. Commiasionor F~rnno ~hsn inquirad o~ Ms. Lawry ahat tk~~tl o! nctian vould the Commiaeion Leke legally to Cerminata kho C-1 Zone reaolution oP l.ntsnt and could tY-a ~ommiooion c~ct ~n i.t~ whereupon Mr. I'~owry stst-, l~.het the Commis~eion t-md made auch a request p!'ovlaua].y, ~c~ordinq to tha n~inuta~, hawaver, hie problem Nee whethe: or .:~~~ ~he City Cou~acil really !~oted on tha recommenda~ion, xnd tha le~ter now aefor.o the Commi.NOion wae terminatl~t~ ~nly upon epprovnl of the R-2 Zone ahange. A'°~•or canti.nue+d di ocusaion by the Commiasian, Mr. Loarty, ataft, ~snd Mr. '~arieio, Mr. Roberts eugge~ :ed that. e~:b~ect petltione bo oantinued to th~e next meetina co alloK ~tstf :ime to xet~aarch the tl,loa to deter.mind whnt notion wae teken by th~s City Gouncii, and ~.t i~ skill wae unalaar, Chen ekatf cou7.d req~aeat c].urifi- cation Czom the City Coiinail betore the Plannir.g Gommieaion public hoar.inq. Commi~aic+^sx Seymour offered a mo1•.ian to recomwend dismpproval on the b~sie t~-ak a~thou~h th~.re Wda e- resolution of intent to C-I on th ~~rop~ar~Y, seid zon~ »g rrma s+:ipulated to be removed upon approval o! C-1 zuuiny !or tha Rnnchhouee in April, 1971s that ':he belanc~e uf the propezty h ad n raanlution of intont to R-H~22,OOQ recently detab'.tehed, and L•he oroposed zone would be eatabliehing an ~anGesira.ble precedent fo.r ~ther p~r~e of Annheim Rille. Up~n rult call the fnrQ,quing moCion lost, Commi.o~ionora Gauer, K1ng, and Seymour voting "aye" and Cammisaioners }~llre~, Farano, Harbst, snd Rowl.and vo~inq "no". Commissi~~nec Farano offer.ec~ a mot;on, seconded by ~ommis~ioner Herbat and MOTION CARRIED, to ~:~:~`_~nue consideration af Environmenta~ In,pact Repurt No. 97, Reclaseification N~. ~3-74-11, Conditi~.onal Uae permit No. 1415, ai~d Tentative Ma~ of •. art No. +~405 : o kY+e meetinq of Snp~tember 5, 1973, *.^_ aecertain ~he etatu~ oY •.he r.esolution of intent to C-1 on a porticn of aubject property whi.ch wns eatsblished undoz ReclaESification Nd. 6?-68-29 an JRCer.-k+er 12, 196T. Commiesioner ktowland nated that the EIR Supplement under "Alternativo Methoda of Development" mentioned the fact tha~ d~veloQment af the parcel for R-H-22,000 would reault in less than a..easonable eeonoa-ic uRe of the property and raould be ine£tectual to the intent of the Rnahei-^ Iills ae a whol~, Ytowever, 1~9 did not feel thia was a~ioquate, and tho petitioner ehould preaent Rlter.nativea rather than stating why alternatives would not be feaeib]e, therefora, the petitionar .hould cansidP~ ~his betwc+en now and t'~ie rsext hear~ncl so Lhat alt3r- natives couid be presented, otha.rwiae 'there might be another lengthy publio hearing. Mr. Barisic stated that their s-.atement th.. R-H-22,000 was not ~easibte was ba,~ed on tT1R fact that r-). and R-2-5000 :.oning had been appsovad to the nozi:l~ af Santa Ana C~xnyon Ftoad, while R~1 had been developed to the weat of Anaheim HilZs Raad on the ~ouCh side of ~anta Ana Canyon Rcad, and wh~n the Mohler Drive yropert~ hTd be~n annex~d into the Citx, aome form of halcYinq zone had to be astabliahed on the propertY. therefore, the Com~aisaion and Council hasd establiahed R-H-22,000 for tlie p.roperty edjttcent to a major hiq2:way, which h~e conaidered inconaiotent with the type of rural zoning enviaionecl for R-H-22,OOG Zane. Chairman Ga~uer noted that he had aeen a number of C-1 davelopmenta in Anah~ita Nhi~h hr~d been detrimental to the area in which they Mere zocated, thiref~re, he did not fee~. the C-1 resolution of intent on the propezty would bs deeirabla for that property, pszticu11r1;~ with ao many ot the larg~ 4hopptng :entars in Anaheim and Ozange havinq a difficult time ~inancidlly ~.u operate becauee o! the numbezs af. centere which had besn davc~l~ppd. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNIN(1 CAMMxE35ION, 11uqu~t 20, 1.973 73-~14 ~NVIRONMFN7~)1I~ IMpACT - PUBLIC Hffi~R=NG. WOOpBIN$ CORP. ~ 8383 W~1thiL'~ B1vd. , R.BpORT O, 98 Sui.te 700, S~v~rly H111s, Ca. 90211, Ownor~ x~qu~~ting WAxVrR bF (A) bl'lNIMUM LCT 11REA, (A) MININUM LOT ~IIDTH~ V~RIAHC~NO. 254Z (c) REQUZRI~MENT THAT 9IN(iLB-FI-PlTr,Y RESI~RNTIAY, BTRU~TUABS R' AR ON ARTI~RIAL HIdHii11Y8~ (D) NINIMUM LOT WIDTH ON ]1 T1~N'rATIVE M11P OF CUL-QI~-SAC, AND (B) MINIMUM FAONT SE'~BnCK '~O BgTnBLI9N TR11CT NOS. 8375, 245 LOTS 2N THRLE TAP.CTS on prop~rty daoc°.be~ a~ ~ 8376, AND 8377 An irregal+~rJ.y-dhap4d paruol of l+~nd conele~~.ng pg +~pproxi~ matsly 63.7 acreo, having a lrontaqe o! appz'oximntsly 1,980 Peet an the north •ida oi Serrano ]lvanue, havinq a maximun- d~pth oP approxlmately 1,60Q t~~ti, and b~+inq locetad ap~roxl.mately 530 fc+eh ea~et o! tt.e csntarl~.ne o! Nohl Ranoh Rodd. Yxoperty preoent•ly alaeei~ied P.-A, AORICU: TURAL, ZQNF. , TENTATY V TRAC~f RF.QUESTS - DF.VELU~ER: S& S l'ONSTROCTION C0. , 8393 k'f l~hira Blvd. , Deverly tt.i.lla, Ca. i~0111t ENC3IN~LRo Toupe Enqi,neer.ing Inc., 1010 Narth Ma~n 9~., Santa Ane~ Ca. y271.1. Traat No. ~375 cortsinlnq 35.2 acreb progoeed for eub- division inta 141. 4-1 xoned lote~ Tract• Na. fl376 con- ta~ining 13.5 aareo prApoeed Par subdivieion into ~0 R-1 2oned lots t t-nQ Traat No . 837 i contsining 14. 6 acres, propoeed for oubdlviaion into 5~3 R-1 Zoned lata. Nc, one app~ ~-rod in oppoaitian, althaugl~ two poraona i ndiaated kh~ay w~uld ].i.ke to make cc,mcRentR and aek queationo. J-ithouqti the Report tn the Cnmmissiun wa-s not rodd at public hearing, i~ ie raferred to and made park of tha M~.riU1:6fi. Mr. Joh n Garcia, repreeanting the developor of the tracta, appeared before the Commiss ion and na~ed that the geveloper wae a subeidiary of 5happbll Induetria~s~ that th ~ tract mape wcre the result of numerous m~etinqs with etaff~ that tha r.ecommrs~ndatione were ar,ceptab].e to them~ thnt they wexe propoeinq to ~ovelop the property ae R-1 homea with ~ density of 3.85 unite per dCIH rether than th~ R-2 design~tion originally established on the qeneral pl~sn for the Anah~~sim Y.ills area; tY~at these~ houaing types would aell in the area of 540,000 to 65,0~0, and with th e amenities khey aleo praposed homea renging i.n size from 160Q to 3000 equare rpets that the L•ract me~pa had etreets with curvilinear cul-de-AACB with allo~~ancee for sl~pegt that these ma-pa might be conaidered aemi.-final becauee of the extensive enqi.neexing required for pad location, air.A of the lote, and the location of the homer~ nn tihe p~ds. Mr. Garcia, in reaponse to Commission questioninq, stated khat the minir~um lc.t ai9e p ropos~d wae 6,Oa0 squsxe fast with e~ve~raqe 1ot size of 8,600 aquare ~eet, the minimum lot width on a cul-de-sac, but somo lat$ wrere tn axcees cf the minf mvm 1~at width of 70 feett that in s~me inatances the lot width on a cul~de-sac was 15 feett that they proposed Co vary the setback of tho qarages having not only 6-10 foot aetbacks but aleo 20 to 25 Yoot setb++al~a with approximately six~- teen of the IlO1R38 havin~ th~ 2U•••foot setback, and ~his was neceasary to allow fcr so~e fl~xibtlity in placing the h~mes on the oads to avoid the stzaight line psevelant in m~st subdivisiona~ that there were aeveral thi.nc~s he would like to emphaa ize namaly that th~ area in which they prapoaed to develop was pzujected for a d;~sity of from 5.2 to 7.2 dwelling un3te per acre~ that Parkview wa~s e~ppro ~ed for a denalty of 5 units per r-cro wh11A Ldkeview wae spprovec] for a denaity of 7. ~ unitR per acret that in every city in which thay had c~.evelo; Pd the 20 -foot buil3ing aetback hnd boen the norm, and they fel~ that by combininc~ tho 6- 10 foot with the iG end 2S-foot setbaak thie would provide for a sta~gcred set~ack~ and that this wae not mandatory in the troct but they would prefe~r the~t this b e qr anted~ dad that he was r~~ailable co anawcr any questiono. Mra. Maxy ~inndorf,l3~. South La Paz, repreaentinq the 5anta 11na Ca-~~yon improve- ment mseociation, appeared before the Commi$aion e~nd etated ~he wae r~w~ar~ oE the leat that Sriappe+ll Induetrie~+ adv~r~ised that they b~ailt qua1~ ity homes, hawever, there was another con~idera'cion and that wa~ thA tact that watar from the tract in whi ch she resided drain~d onto an S& S deve).opment, however, when sho had brau~ht t*-ie ta their a-ttontion, ahe had been odvised that the City ~nqineez•ing Dopartmor.t had approved th~ir dxa~.e~aqe faci.l?tles. but ~aid de~-elopmont dCt1R1S.5/ had .~ be.^n-. ~tx. Dinndorf then in~uircd how ~he propoeed development would affact Serra~no Aven~~ - would tha ~treat be extsnded~ whereupon Mr. Ga-rcia etated thnt the atrea~ woul9 be complet~d throv~ghout this de~velo~ment ~+a a condition of appr.ova.l. ~ ~ ~ MItiUTB~r GITY PLAN:~IN(i CpMMItinION, 11uqu~t 20, 19%3 73-~J1S 16NVIRONM35NTAL IMPAC'1' ItF.POR'P N0. ~3Ar V1IRIANC~ N0. 2542 ~ At~':~ T$IJTATIVE M11P$ OF ~RACT N08 . 8?75, 8376. AND 8377 Commi~eionar Rowland inquireA whexh~r. Mr~. alnnd~x! lully u~~ar. ..aoa th~ r~ply o! Mr. (iaroie whiah me+snt that ~they aoulA aomplet~ Berrano :v~nue ao it p~r- ta-inod to tha etr'at in front o! th~ir d~velopm~nt, wi~~oe tharo would b• otih~x property betwean eubjact propecty and aantinua4 extanaion ot the str~ot. Mr~. Di.nndor.! then inq~iireli whathsr S~,srano would bo aontinund all the wa'Y ko 3an~~.eqo Canyon RoAd ~.o the aouth in Villa p ark, anQ then Commiesion nQt~d ~hat th~ etr~ret wea alreaay c~nstruo~ecf lrnm Nohl A.anah ltoad~ but Would rtill r~quire curbb and quttera, but Lhet the exkenolon ot the orraek to Vills park w~s noC to be aaaomplished au r rueu.lt a! these traot• . Mr. John Ruaker, 111 1*re-nai~ca, appoar~d b~fore ~ho Commieaion nn8 stat~d L•hdt hs wae not oppor~ed to thie pazticular 6svelaper, bur the developez was requ~~tinq appxove~l tv Gonetxuct another ne~v tract, nnd h~ repr~aented a numbar ar p~raone wh had purchaaed their homee from S& 3 Construotion 4Rd. had to file campla~inte w~.kh ths Atate in order to have cor.rectione made to thair homes by ':hie company, there- lore the Commiesion ahauld take thin into con~idaxetion before any addition++l tracte w e,xe d~~praved. Mr. (3arcie, in rebuttel, etated that the propo.ed developmant had a mdeter pl~n :for atorm drains to b~ construotocl thru it. Commiosi.aner 1Allred inquired whether lt was propoaeci ha~-e thoee homes conotructed with eavee, guttere, and dawnapouts~ that pexheps this mighk seem trivie-3., but he lound that it was tsn absolute necessity in the hill area to hAVe prop ~ dzain- ege duriny the raiuy monthe, otherwise thex~e Would be complete erosion ot the terrain and landscapinq thdr, could reaulC in s~rioue ground sllppaqe~ e~nd that he had to provide thia for hie home lacated in the Luak dc~velopmant an the nor.r.h side of Nohl Aench Roa3 east of Santiayo Canyon Road~ whereupon Mr. Garcia atar.ed that do~+nsp~ute, outters and eavea would be prov.'ded if it was reqi:ire8 by the Cir.y. TH~ HEARING WAS CL' OSED. Con~missioner 1(ing offered a mokion, saconded by Commissioner A11rcd, and Md~ION C:~RRIED, lthat Che Planning Commission in connection wi*h the filinq of Environ- mental ~mpaat Report No. 98, finds and determinea ~that the E.I.R. Review Committee c~etoxmined that the Report ie adeguate ae an informative document and follow~ the City's establiahed quidelinea, and tha~t thero w~:~uld be no aignixicant a~civerse etivironmental impactsj therefore, the Planning ~ommisaton rocommends to L•he City Council that eaid report be adopted a~ th~ ~uncil' a Environmgntal impact Stateme ~t. Commissi~ner Hozbst affe~:ed Resolution No. 1~~'l3-],94, and moved for. its passaqe and ado; :ion t~ grant Petition for Vartance Nc~. 2542 3n paz~t, d~nying waiver of the xaquired fron*_ ~etk~ack from the oropnrty 11ne to ~. garaqe on the basis thnt adequate variatiuns ~^ ~.~etback could be provided within the limitationa of the aite development ~tandards of tk~e R-1 2one , and that petitioner ha~i not provan a hardship would e~xiat if said ~a~iver were not granted~ that due to the terrmi,z ~~ thQ property waivEr of the mini~um lo~ azau, minimum lot widt~-, mi.nimum lot width on ~ cua.-de-aar, und the requirement that xesidential str:uctuzea shall rea:: onto ar~hrial hiqhway$, gaid waivers would be granted, and sixbject to conditions. Frior ~o :oll aall contfnued discusaion ~wae held on the motion as well ae the fect that. it was poseible that e number of these pads would b9 leas than that required ~.n the RS-5000 Zone~ that ~ome of the property was ra-ther tlnt and the pade could b~ i-~creasad to meet the pad size zequir~sment ~f the RS-~J00 Zone~ that even khough tt~e~ developers were reciucinq the propoe~d den~ity, thi~ wae not suffxciei:t reascn for waiver ~f the pad re;uirsment~ and Chat ataff abould review theee req~airements with rhe agent ~or the developgz tu dFtermine ~rhat.ier they could comply with this rec~uiremont. Zonin3 5uper.lsor Ch~arles Robertig r.aviewed the plans with tl.e xapresantive~ Mr. Garcia ind~catinq the a~ess o~ concern l~y the C~mmieeion, and upon ita canclusion Mr. Garcia stip~lated to meetinq thti mi.nimum pad area requirements Qf the RS-5000 'Lone, but requeetad trat thece be ravieta8d foz him. Mz. Roberts notec~ that the minimum pad eize for RS-SOOQ ZoneB lots v-as 5,000 equare fset ~f buiidabl~ axea tor each 3-bedraom hame~ that Por eACh home that had moro than 3 bedr.ooms 850 squa•.e f~et per bedraom muat -.e provided. M7N~T~8 GITY PLANNYNa COMMZSAION, Auquot ~0~ 1 973 73-516 E~VIRONM~NT~L IMPA~T REPORT ~O. 98, V~R*.~NCB N 0. ~543~ ~ND T~NTATI~IB MAP OF T~~CT ~09. 83~5, 837b~ 8377 (o~nt'd) ~~~ , ~i Nr. Rob~rtd, in reapoi~ae to Commis~iun ~u~~ti o niny, ~tated thnt althouqh xhe petition~r miqht hdva pad ar~aa ot b,000 s~ua r~ ls~t einae it wAS pzopoaed !or R-1, ~te!! h~d not aalaulated ahat th~ build~Vlo pad ~rea would ba snd sam« o! CAa lot ~re• oould be in ~lopeAi ~hat th• pa t itionor di~ now raqueat R8-5000 2oninp baoau~• he Nauld have besn unsb~.~ to eamp],y with the eita devalo~menC et~nd~rds o! the aona. Commi~sioner Rowland obecrved that i! ths d~velopsr was prop~~i~ng che amall~r p+~dr h~ would aaaume ~hat hs Kould b~ aon~truatinq rmul.ler hom~e on said pact~. Mr. Garcia noCsd Y'or +~n• Commiseion that •os~a o! tne pad ~xsa-~u wer~ lesd ~han 5050 equare lQ~t there beinq 14 0! ths lirrt 90 lo~e r~vier-sd, however, with th~ etipulatian thnt they would aom~ly with tho pad ar~a requiromsnt o! tha R8~5000 Zone theae woul~.t hnv-~ to be amand~d. Commiemi.oner Seymour then amen~~c9 his re~olution of app:roval to inc].ude tht~t all llat pad areAS ~a r~11 tr~aote muet onmply with the ~oxmuls oetabliakie~ Por lote in kh• RS-5000 Zon~, namely for 3-hedroa m homee t~ flet pad area ~P 5,000 equsre faet~ !or ~i-bedraom h~amea 5850 square taet, !~r 5-bedr~om homes67A0 squarm ~oot k~omes , etc. , as etipulated to by che oyent Poi the peti±ioner. (Soa xaaolution Baok) An roll c~.ll tne Eoregainq reaolution was ~~ssed by the fallowinq vote: AYESs COMMIS5IONERS: Allred, Faxano, Gauer, Herbet, Kinq, Rowla~nc~, Seymour. NOES~ COMMISSIONE RSs Nono. ABSENT~ COMMI3SIONERS~ Nane. Commidaionor 4eymour o£ferad a motion, ~mcan d ed b} CocimiPSlonex Herbet and MOTION CA,RRIED, TO APPROVE Tentative ~1ap oi Trnc~ Na. 8375, ~aubjeat to the folJ.owinq conditiona~ (1) That the approval of Tentntivo Map of Tr a ct No. 8375 ia granted eubiect to the a~proval ~f Variance No. 2 542. (2) That should this Aubdivision be devsloped aa more t}~dr. one ~ub- ~livision, each aubdivision ~horeof shall ba eubmitted in tenta~ tive fozm Eor dppr.oval. (3) Tha~ in accordance with Ci~y Council pol i~cy, a 6-foo~ ma~onYy wall ehall be conatruated on L•he south And wes t property lines separat- inc~ Lot Nos. 80, 95, 96, 97, 115, 116, 12 6, 127 dnd 128 and Serrano Avenuar and Lot Nos. 1 throuqh 8 and ].41 and Nohl Ftanch Road. Ree~ona',le landscaping, includfnq irriga.tion facilikies, eha11 be inr~ta~led in t.he uncemented porti.on o;E the arterial highway parkway the fu~l sii.stance of said wal?, plana for e~nid landacepinq to be aubmitted to and subject to the approval of thr~ Superinte~ndent of Parkway Maintenance. P'ol2owinq inatalletlon and acceFtance, the City of Anaheim shal 1 aesume the re+sponel~ L~ility for mairitenance of. ~aid lnndacaping. (4) Thet all lots with~n thie tract ahall be sarvad :y underqround u+tilitiea. (a) That a fi~al ~tran~ map of suh jeat property shal: be eubmitted to ana a~proved by the City Coun.,il nnd ~hsn be recordefl in the office of the Oranga Count• Recorder. (6) '~hat s~tsaet name~a ahall be appxoved by the City ~f l~nahe~im pri~r to approval oP a final tra~t map. (7) The-t Cha ownar(~) of subiect prdperty s2iall pay to the City o~ ~naheim t~e approprlate paxk and recreation in-liou fee~ ae determined to be appropria~te by the C~ ty Council, •ai8 lees to be gaid at the timo tho build3nr, pormit ia isoued. L ~ • MINUTES ~ CITY PLANNIN ~ COMM'i8SI0N ~ A,u{~u~t 70, 1973 ~3~5I.7 ~NVIRONMlENT11L YMP7ICT RSpnRT NO. 98, VARI71NC8 N0. 154~ ~ ANp T]lNT~,TIVB MAP ol~ TR1-CT N08. 8373~ 8376, J-ND 8377 (aont'4) _.~....~. (8) Th~L drainsqe o! •aid properCY ~hall b• Qi~pos~d o! in a ~nannsr ~atiotaAtoxy to ths City Fnqine~r. _!, in the pr~paration of bhs ~it~, aufflci~s~t qra~iing ie xequl,s~d to aao~isit~tm a gredinc parml~, no vrork on qr,sding will b• pern~itted b~tw~,en octob~r 7.5th and l-pril .l5th unleua ail requir~d o!l~~iko drainaqe ~'acill.ties have beon ic~eCalled anlf are a~srakive. Poeltiv~ a~iuranos ehall be provided tho City ~that n~oh drainage~ laoiliti~w vei,ll be ~om- plated priar ~o Ootober 15th. Necass~r.y r.iqh~-al~-aAy !or o~f-~ite drainaye ~acilieies ehail be dedicethd to tha Ci.ty, or tho C:Lty Caunci.i ehsil have initi te~ cnndemnat~on procsedinga Cheretor (the coete of whl.ah ahall be '~orno b~ '.:~~e QevAloper) prior to oammeno~ament ef grading o~er~tiona. Tha raquired drainaqe lacili- tiee ~hull be o~ t+ eiza and type eufPicinnt ta carry zuno!! Mat~re drlqinating from higher propertiea L•hrough said propez~ty to ult1-- mete di.epoc~al aa npprovad by th~ Gity ~:nginaer. said ~ra!•nage lacilitiee ehall be the f~ret iL~m of oonetruation and ehall be aox:pl•ted and be Punational throughout the traat anc9 trom tha downstream l~oundary o! tho propnrty to tk~a ult~.mate point of dis- ponal prior to the iat+ua~nae og nny finnl buildi.ng inepec.tions ax occupdncy p~rmfts. Drainege diatrlct xeitnbursomt+nk. agroc~mento may bP made available to tho developere of eAid prn~eity upon theiz roquest. (9) That grndinq, excavation, and all other cor-etruction dctivities ehall be canducted in ouch a max~ner so as Co miniml.ze th~ pueai- bility o~ any silt originating from this projeot being car.ricd into the 3 anta Rna Rivez by etorm water originsting fro~. or f].ow- ing throuqh thie project. (10)That the devel~per ahall dedicat~ 41 feet Prom the cente.~line of Nohl Ranch Ro~•d to the City o~ Anaheim fo.r street and public u~ility pur~osee. (l.l)That the develop9r shall dedicate 38 feet from the canterline of 3errano Av~nue to tho Ci.ty af Anaheim for btreet and public utility pur.poseg. (12)That pr~lor to approval of the final tra~~t m~p, floor plana and elevations £or the proposed howeee ehall be eubmittad to and mppraved ny the City Councll. (13)That the •~ehicular nccess riglits, excePt at atreet and/oz allsy openinqs, to Noh]. Ranch Road and Serrano Av,anue al:all be dedi- cated to the City of Aiial:eim. Commiseionsr Seymour off.ered a n,~tion, seco~decl by Commiasioner Herbat and MQTiOt7 CARRTED, to approve TFntative Map of Tract Nu. 6376 , sub ject tA tl~e following oonditionss (i) That Ch~e approval of Tentative Map of Traat No. 9376 ia granted eub~ect to the appxuval of Variance No. 2542. (2? Triat 9hould this aubdivision bc+ develnped ae more than one sub- division, eaah subdiviaion thereaf ehdll .,e subc~itt91 in tenta- tive form fnr approval. (3) That all lots within this rnct shall be served by underqraun~9 utilit3ee. (4) That ~+ fi.nAl tract c-sp of oubjeat prop~rty ahall ba submitted to and approved by the City Council And then be recorded in the office cf tha Ora.nge County Reaqrder. (5) T!~a atreet name~ snall be appr~ved by the City of Anaheim prior to epproval o~ a final tract map. ~ MINUTtiB ~ 1~N71HExM ~ ~ CITY pLANNrNG COMMISSIUN~ Augul~t 1~~ 1973 73~518 ~NVIRONM~NTAL IMPACT RBPORT N0. 98, Y7~IRIAN(:F N0. zsaa, AND TENTl17,'IVE M11P OF TR11CT NOB. 8375,~,H376t snd 8377 (aont'd) _____~ (6) Thet th• aMner(s) of oubject ~rapsxty ~hall pay ~o th• City o! Anaheim th~ ap~ropriate park und xacrea~ion in-liou Pe~~ e~ dr.terminad to ba appzopriate by the Cit.y Caunoil, eaid lees to bs pa-i.d at thm time tho bui.lQing ~ermit ia issu~d. (7) That draSndg~n or ~aid property ehall be 91~poasQ o! in a mann~r eatisfaotory to the C~ty Enqiaeer. tf, i.n the prapurat~.on nf the eita, au~licient grnling ia requlrad to n~aeeaitats a qradinq Q~r.mit, no work on qra-ding will be permitted between Ootob~r 19th ana Apri.l 1!~t:~ unle~s a~il rogu~ir~d of!-aite dro,inage laailiCles hava bsen i.nsCall~d anQ a~re opexative. Positiva ae0ure~ncs •riall be providad tha Ci.ty khst auch drninaqe faailiti~md will ba co~n- pletad pri~r to October 15th. NeoesAary right-ol-wsy !or ott-aite dre~inaqe ~acili.ties ehall ba dedioated to ~h: City, or the City Council aha-11 ha~ve initiat~-d co~ndamnation procaedinga therefor (~1na cogts o~ which ehdll, be borne by the developer) prior to com~~encement ot qradinq operations. The required dra~.nnqe faaili- tioe :3hA11 be of d eix~ and typo su!l,i.c~.ant to cazry runolf watere oriqinat•ing from higher pragorties throuqh said pr~perty to ulti- a:a~te die~asel an appxoved by the City Engineer. Ssid drainage laailiei.ae shall be tha first item of construction a~nd ahall be completed r~~nd be functional throughout the trar.t ~and from the downstzeam baun8ary af the nroperty to tho uli:imato polnt of di~- posal prior to thA idauanco af any fin~l building inepectione or occupnncy ~ermit~. Drainaqe iistriat reimbursament xqreemente may be made availabls to the 3ovulopera ~f seid prop~arty upon their requeat. (e) That grr~ciiiig, excavation, and all other consfi.r~ction activities sh~ll be eonducted in such a manner eo es to minimize the posoi~ billty of any t~ilt axiqinacing ~rom this project boing cerried i.nko the Santa ~4na River by otorta water origi~iating fxom or flow- ing throuqh thia project. (9) Ttiat the developer ahall dedicate 38 feet from the centerlina of Serrano Avenue to ~he City af Anai~°im for street and pubtiic utility purposes. (~U)That prior to appxoval oi tlie final tracti map, floor p~ans and El~vations for the propo3ed houses shall be aubmitted to and a~proved by th~ City Council.. Commi~:sioner Seymc~ur of£ered a motion, sec~nded by Commf~sioner Herbst and MJTION CARRSED, to approve Tetitative Map uf Tract No. 8377, subject tc the fallowing conditionas (1) That the appr val af Tentative Map o.f, Tract No. f3377 ia grar.ted aubjec~ to t'e approval of Variance No. 2542. (2) Ttxat should thia subdivision be devsloped as more t}~an one ~u.~.° division, each subdivision thereof sY-a11 be aubmitt::d in tenta- tive form for approvaZ. {3) That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot mar~onry wall ehall be constructed on the eouth property line sepazat~.nq Lot Nos. 41 through 44, 47 through 50, and 54 and Serrano Avenue. Reasonable landscapinq, inaluaing irrigation faci'lit3.es, ehall be inatalled in the uncoma~~.ted portion of t'he arterial highway pmr.kway the full dietance of said wall, plan~ tos ~ai d landacap- inq to bb submittad to and subject co the a~~roval of the superintendei~t of Parkway Maintenance. ~'ollowing lr.~tallation and a-ccep~ance, the City of Anahein~ aha.ll asenmo tha responsi- bility for maintenance af said landecapinq. (4) That all lot~ within this trar.t shall be served by undergxou~d utiilitiee. ~ MINUTEB, CITY ~ • PLANNING COMMISSIOt~, Auguet ~0, 1.973 73-519 ENVIR~NMENTI-I~ IMPACT REPORT NO. 98, V7IRIANC'I~ N0. 2842, ANA TENTJITIVE MAP AF akACT NOS. 93?5~ 8376~~_ANA 8377 ~OORE'd~.,,~~ _._. (5) That a linal traot m+~~ o! aub~aat pro~orty ~hall b~ suDmi4ted to nnd approv~d by th• City Council and then b~ xeourdod in the atfiae o! the Oxang• Coun~y Reooxder. (6) ThAt atzeat nameo ahall be approved by tha City o~ Anehstm prior to approvnl o! a~l.nal ~rant mep. (?) That tho owner(o) o! eub joct property ehall p+~y to the City af 7~naheim the ap~rapriet• paxk end reczeation in-lieu leo~ ne cletorminei! to be nppropriate by tha City Counc3l, ~aid teeo ta be pai3 at the time tho buildinq nermit ie iseued. (e) Thnt draLnaqe oP sald pronerty~ s1ia11 be diepoeed o! i» a manner satimfact.ory to the City Enginear. If, tn the praparati~n uf Che aite, auff~cient gradinc~ ie require to neceaeitete a qreding permit, no work on gradinq will bo permitted between October 15th and April 15th unlase all requ~.red otf-aitr drainaqa leailit~.ee have been inatelled a.nd ara operative. Positive aseurance eha~ll be provided tho City khat auch drainagti fnailitiee will be ~om- pleted pxior to October 15th. Nocesae-ry right-of~w~-y for off-aita drainage facilitiee ahall be dedioa~ted to the City, or the City Council ahall hnve initfatecY conctemnation proceeclin s therofor (the coats o! which ahall be borne by the developc+r) priar L•o commencement of grading operation~. The required draindqe facili- tioa shall be of a f~ize and type sutfici~nt to ce-rry r~unoff ~•~ators origici4ting £rom highex propertiea through said property to ~~lti-• mate di~nosal r:s 3pproved by th~ City Engineer. Snid dreinaqe facilities st~31]. be the firat item of canstruction and ehall bR completed and bb functional throuyhout the tract anU from the downstream boundary of the property to tha ulti.mat~e point of dis- poaal pri~r to the issuAnce of any final buil .inq inapacti~ns ar occupancy permite. Drainage district reimbursement agreamanto may be made available to ~he d~, lopers of saicl property upon their requesC. (9) That grad3,ng, excavation~ and all other construction activities ahall be aonducted ln such a manner so as to minimizm tl~e posai- bil.ity of any silt ori3inating from ~his pro3ect bein~~ carried into the Santa Ana River by etorm water origlnati.ng from or flow- ing through this pzoject. (10) That the developer ahall dedicate 38 feet from the centerline of ~~rrano Avenue to the City of Anaheim for atreet anc~ public uti: ity pttrposes. ( 11) Th ,t prtor to approval of the final tract uiar~, flooz plans and elevations for L•he praposed houses shall be+ submitted tn and approved by the Ci.ty Council. (12) 7Chat the vehicular acces~ righta, axc~pt a~ street and/or allev openings, to Serrano Avenue ahall be dedicated to tho City of Anaheim. ~ ~ ~ MINUTEB, CITY PLl-NNING COMM78SION, 1luguot 20~ 1973 73-510 ~IL~PQRTB AND - I~`8M N0. Y R~COMNl~NDATi0N9 CONDiTION1IL U8E PERMIT N0. 1052 ( W/W Tovrinq Compsny) Pr.op~rty locak~d on th~ trianglo~-shap~d percel bounde~ by Nalnut 8tz~~1:, Santa Ana~ Street~ and Mnnohqat~z Rvenua. Requ~at !or alaritl.cation of psrmit,t~d uo~~ Zoning Supervl.soz ~harla~ Raber~e x~viavt~d th~ looation o! euhjoct ~+roperty, pr~vioua~ ~oning Aotion an subjeat po~ition, +~nd tha ac-naorn expraRead by Com- anissioner Rawlan8 on Jurn 25, 1973 z~gatding hi~ ab~ervati.on of an e~parant ~ubstitution o! sn impound ysrd for a lormer trucking t~rmin4l approved !~r r.ho eoutherly pnrtiun of the propertyt that tho Commi~sion on July 9, 1Q~3 had approved a motion whorein rha Commissian roqueeted that the Citg Ca~sncil rsPer Conditi.anel uss Parmit No. 1(?RZ baak ~~ '-' j Cowmib~ion to detormine wheth~r or not the usa nAw b~ing mad~ of th• L~erty wae in conEormance with the uea originally sppr~ved, enfl whather a recomu~onda~tion should be made to tate C3ty Counait tha~t the petiti.o~nar ehow causa for not termi.nating Cor~ditionnl Uee Farmit No. 1052, on the ba~ie of an l.nvestigatiom m~da by ataff reg~rdin~ the ap~,roved uee and thA uee as pre~Antl.y exi~~ing on the p~ropnrty~ and thaL• the City Council on July 31, 19'13 had referred eub}ect CUF back ~o the l'ou~mis- eion tor reviow of the oonformity of the current u~9. In addition ~urtiier inapection by etef.f revaaled t'ne followingo 1. Tha~ the eitc had a~ variet:y o! dimilar uaes in the paet. 2. 'Phat the most recer-t uees hdd towin~l services on the northerly lZalf wrlth a truck termindl ~n the southerly - these uaes were a1.1 nonconforming ue+es which wera forma-lly mado confoxm~.nq with the approval of Cond.iti,oria]. Ue~r Fermit No. 1052 an September 11, 1960. 3. That conditione of approval required $evelopment in accordance with the plans ~~;bmitted in additioi~ to the conatruction of a 7-foot high maeonry wall alanq the ooutherly property lis-e adjacent ta ainqle family homea. 4. 'Phat the p].ans indicated that L•he northerly portion the buildirrq aslong Manalieater Avenue would be u9ed for auto repair with the buildir~g along Walnut Street to be used for. an ogfice and autc~ body ehop r~nd paint baothi bnd further, that the building along the base o£ ~he northezly port~~~z Mould be used as an auto impound area, while the uncovered drea in the eenter would be~ available for ci.rcula~fon and pasking. 5. That prior to tarmination of the truc3.inq termi.nal on the south.erly portion, the nor.the.rly portion had ati sometime c~ased to conform to that approve ~.n Exhibit tvo. 2, since the auto body ~hop and pai.n~ bcoth were replaced by the storage of diamantled auto parts, an8 the former auto repair sh4p wxe used ~or parkinq of. tow trucka with Che remaindor of the progerty being used for atort~qe of wrscked vehicles, while the uncovered midd.le arex hnd beeri atacked with wrecked vehicles - in other worda, it would apgear that the use had become primarily a tawing-dismar-tling operation. 6. That the staraqe of impouncled and damagQd vehicles had been establlRhed in the aoutherl}r area formarly o.:cupied by the trucking terminal a~ approved under subject CUP. 7. That on May 12, 1970, tha Citiy Cauncil had approved ~+ request £or axteneion of time for the compl.etion of cox~ditions, and at that time etn-ff had nated ther.e were a aumbes of conditiona that had to be met such ae tra~h areas, atreot tree fees(raqueat !or exteneio~ of time requested a number of times in the ~ast), lowerinq the eecurity llqhtet and that a~,•ery recant inspection of tt~e proporty indieeted that with the poasible exceptl.on oP loWer.ing of the sec~~ritX liqht3ng tha ramainir~q condi±3one had not boen mdt. 8. That tha City Attarraey°$ atat~ had recently discueadd this propoaed ex~an~ sion wi~h tha pet~tioner but they were not fu7.~y mad• ewere ot *_he sxten~ or nature ~~ the propoedd ex~ana~lon and thue suagee~ed to the petitiAner that the propc+s~ed axpannion vrould be in accord wi~h tho int~~nt o~ ~ondttional Use ~ermit No. 1052 as appzoved. How~ver, when the Develcament Ssrvic~a Departmant atafP had advi~ed tha City Attarney's office o' more s~etails reqarding the devel~ping e~cpaneion, the C~ty Attorney'a o~Eice then felt that such a uss would actually not be ~n accord wfth the uee ~a•lgina.lly appr ~ad. Mr. Robez~a concluded by etetinq that the Commi.esion would aiqh to ~etormine if this ~:ew uea ~vaa in keeping with the oriqiaally approved uee, and it nok whet'.er reaommendation should ba mada to the City Couacil tha~~. the peti.tianer shauld shoa cauae ~or a~ot termi~aatiny Condiki.onal Use permit No.1052. Furthvrmore ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CI9'Y PLANNING CAMMI89ZON. Auquelt 20~ 1973 REpOTtTS AND R~COMMENDATIONS (COrit'd) 73-~521 ITEM N0. 1 (cont' d) i! the u~n ee now exiating wou].d eti.~l NarzRnt the origina,].ly a~proved wuiver ~P the 6-loot maoonry wall encloeing th• outdoor u~e. Uiecu~sion waa l~e1d by the Comn~iesion x~gar.dinq the use ae it •xieted, wllathor it met the oriqi.nal i~itent of° ths Comml~Aian, whether tha ch~in link lenco was e~dequat.o for the exiating uace, whether t4~e impound yard creatmd +~ny probiem, si~ice d w~ll existed betwoen the singi4 faraily upee end the impound area, v-heth~r tha usa ea~:abliehed thdre wae in the praper location, ~sinoe it wae at the entr~nce to the commercial-recreation a~r.a and lt; dppeared tA be an eye~eoze eA well ae givinq a vdr,y poor impr~eeion to visitoze to the cit~-, whether the uee wae st~].1 nonconforming aince not nll o! t11e conc9itionw had bean mettwhether the Commienion xhould consider h~ving the owner oP the property pr.eeent to an~wer any Commiedion questiona reqardinq the eetabliehmont ~f the uea in en area on whiah a trucking terr.inal h~d been aQprnved~ and whe~her the~ use ehould be permittec3 to continue wi~h more ocreening technique6 prQVided. Commisaioner Rowland was of the opir~ion that a public hearin.g ahauld be held. Commissi.o~er Farana offored a motion, seconded by Gommisei.oner A11xed, and MOZ'ION CARRIED to s~;t ~or publ:.c hearing Condi~ional Use PArmit. No. 1052. Deputy Ci~~y Attorney krank Lowry adviaed th c'ommiesion tha~ tha Commieaion wae only requaet~d to investigate the posaible sube Ltution ~f nn impound yard Eor c+ formez truckir-q terminal and to submit their recommendation to the City Cour-cil who had the power tu set subject patition ~or public hearing. Comr+iasioner ~arano and Commiasioner Allred withdrew their offer of the motion, -.~d aeconding. Mr. Roher*_s then inquirQd whther tkie Commission hAd auff~cient inforniation to make a recommendation to the City Council or would it be desirablc~ to have some i.nput from the owner of the proper~y, since staff coulfl have him ~resent to provid~ any additional infozmation, after which time the Commissioii could then make wl~atevez reconmendation they desired to the City Council. Commisaianer Allred ~f€ered a motiox~ to di,rect etaff to a~ntaat the property owner of property under Conditional use Permit No. 1052 asking him to appear at the Septembdr 17, 1973 Planninq Commission meeting to annwer Commiasion qnestiona r~g$rding the chang~ in us9 far the property~ r~mmieaioner Herbat seconded tho motion. MOTZON CARRZED. ITEM N0. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1356 (Cabot, Cahot, and I'orbes and Commerci~al Systems znc.) Property loca~ted on the southeast corner of Euclid Str.eet and Romneya 1Drive, requesting a~odification of conditiona. 2onir.;~ Supervi sor CharieE Roberta pxe~ented a request from the !,~rapoacsd dt~v~loper of tk-e coMmer.cial condominium noting ~he locati.on ~f the property, us~~ e~~ablish- ed in cloae proxi.mitp, and the requeat to amend Condi.tian Nos. 2a, 2b, 16, ~-nd 17 of Resolution No. PC72-308 grantinc~ the establishment of a~ aandon m office building togethez with private recreation faailitiea to allow subml~sian of a tentativ~ trac~ map to *_he City Council for approval px~er to isauance of a buildinq permit and thQ rocordation of a final tract map to be completed prior to final building and zoninq inspectiona, pximarily beeauae the developer would k~e selling mir apace on a"as needed" basie and it would be extremely 3ifficult tn know the limita of the vaxiaue air epace modulee until they were ac~u~lly sold, however, tha conditione ac~ oriqinally set for~h ir. the aforementioned resolution were not eo structured to percn~t this, thorefoxe the c~evelnp9rs hsd aubmitted a requeat foz modification of theee conSitions. Fur~hermorn, repre- s9ntativee of the City Enqineering Diviaior., City Attorney's oftice, aad thn Uovelopment Servicea Department hnd examined the ;~roFoaer] amnndmentm snd had conaluded that ~hey would not no detrimental ef~ect on the intereete o! the City since the city would still have aufficien~ control. ~ommisaioiier ~'arano offered Re~anl ution No. PC73-195, mnd mov~d for ita passage and adoption co amend Res4lution No. PC72-308 qranting Conditianal tJse Permit No. 135'~~ aa followe~ ~ ~ ~ 73-5Z2 MINUTES, CITY PLANNINQ COMM285ION, Auquat 20, 1973 AEl?ORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS i cQnt' d) IT~M N0. 2 (cont'd) "(2)a. That d tentative tzaat map o~ OubjAOt pro~erty Nhall be submitted to end approved by khe Clty Counoil. (2)b. That tl~e finnl tract nisp ot subjec` property ehall be euAmi.tr.od to and apQz•oved y the CitX Counail and then be r~corded in tha oPtlco of the Or< ye County RocorQeX. (].6) Tha-t Conclltion Nos. 1 and 2a, above montionecl, ahall ba comp~ipd with ~rlor to the commehcement oP th~+ aotivi~y autt~orited undex ~.hie roeolution, or gr~.or to the time L•hat the building permit it~ 9.esued~ or within a periad of one yonr from dat~ hereof, whichever occure fireC, or auch furthor time a-A the PlAnninq Cou-mieeion may grant. (17) That Condition Noa. 2b, 3n, 3b, 4, 6, 8, 9, i~, A1, 12, an~l 14 ahall ba complisd with pr~.or to linal building and xoniny inr~pec~ tion~." On roll call tha foreg~ing resaluti.on waa paesod by the followinq vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERSs ALLR~D, FARANO, GAUF,R, H~RBST, KING, ROWLANU, SEYMOUR. [dOES: COMMISSIONL'RS: NONE. ABSENT: CQMMIBSIONERS: t~~~NE. ITEM N0. 3 COND7TIONAL USE PERMIT NG. 121a -~ubnrbia Homeownesrs Asaocia~ion Property located on tha suathQast cor.ner of Ri4 Vista and P'rontera ctreets - sequest.for cla~xifiaation f approved Code waivor~. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject ~ixoperty, anc3 thQ developtn9nt wh~ch had occurred, tagether with the reques~ for clarification from repreaentatives of the homeowners aesocation regarding the wall encloQi~re far patio ~reas, sincp many af the condominium owners were deNiroua of installing coveXS for their patios, however, it would soem that unless othez stupe were taken variances would be required to allow such roo£a to extend into the required front setbackj therefore~ would it be the Commission's opinion that in view ~f previous approval of. the 6-foot high wall encloaure within the front setbaak that a roof would also be pexmitted subjeat tc, written appr.'oval of the buildiny and zoning staffs, since there were approximately 42 units of the 324 units that would be within the front setback. FuztlnPSmoxe, *.here were same unita whach cou18 pravided these patio roofs and still comply with Code, but othnr~ were unable tn provide tham beca~se of the interpretation that was necessary for this waiver. In acldition, some of the private patios encroached into the front set- ?aack of the adjacent at:eet which was approved, while others had the patioa c~vered but these were not ~djacent to strpats and the3e gave no problem. Mr. ~ordon Itodgers, 426-A NOrth Beth Street, appea.red before the Cnmmi3sion and stated he was a member of the Suburbia Homeowners Asaoca.ation but: wag nc,'t a member of the boar.d of disectora, and he wanted t:o ~onstruct a cov~x on hia patio similar to the exhibit he was prese~iting to the C~mmission, notinq that these would not be solid covers but would be louvred and any roofs had to have th~e xpproval of the homeowners association r~hich this design hadf and that other patio cover3 had been 3pproved by th; ?~silc~ing Division, but thoae which wauld be oricroa~hing into the buildinq setbACk w~sre not. Cammiasioner Farano expresaed cancern that if thie ~~cback waiver aoze determined to ba in conformance with that originally approved, then the Commission could expect fuzthbr xequesta for interp:etation in~o th~ aide setbncke tor these patiost whereupon Mr. Rodqer~ etated that the Aeeociatiot. wculc~ not condone any side setback encroachment, an~ that any additlon~ which residents wanted would have to be cleared thru the Aseociatian. Continued disaussion waa held between the Commirss~io~; and Mr. Rodqexs ,.ega~rdinq thmt which was propoaed And permiL•ted by the Aaeociatiai,whether it wae to be conei%ered aimilar to patios in the r~ar yarda ~f single family homest whether the ~;ommission ehould limit any covers to the exhibit pre~ent~d, wi~h elatted rooFe only. ' . ~ MINUT~B, CITY ALANNTNG COMMISSION, Auqu~t 20, 1973 ~3-57z R~PdR»'S AlID RECQMMENDFITION8 ( Cont' d) ITEM N0. 3 (cont'd) _.~...r- Comm~ie~erion~x Seymour otf.or.~d s motl.on, eeoondod by Commissi~nar Farano and MOTION CARAtIED, that it i~ ~he Planninq Commi~ai~n'a int~rpratntio» that the exhibi,t pree~nted of •latt..c1 pa~i.o rnofe in thA lront satbeok dubstankia'lly ie in conl.ormance wi*h the a~~vAr ~zanted unQer CundS.Cion+~l Uee P~xmit t~o. .1214 ~ providad that eacr- rxopot~e6 pr~tio root propoeed shall be approvod ky Ehe 3ubu.:bie Flomo~ownare Aseooint on end ahall be nubject to the •peaificati~ono o! tho Huildi.ng pivision. TTEM NA. 4 ~qI~DYTIONAL USE FE RMIT N~. 1218 - R~queat. for npproval A! oaaintenanco end rvicA of heating and air conditioning unite ae being eubrtantially in conPormanoe with uaee permittAd -~r4perty lo~a~keCl on ~he nortl~west corner o! Krnemer Dlvti. , nnd La Jolla 9trqet - zoned M-1• zor-i.nc~ Sup~rv.isor Charles Roberte reviewed the loaa-t~.on u~ aub ject proF~erty, ueea eetabli~shed in cloae proximity and the requoet for approval oE n uae being thn maintenance and eervice of heatinq ar~d air cond.i~ioning uni.tar thnt when G.U.P. No. 1216 was granteQ by tha Planning Commi.eei~n on Merch 22, 1971 to allow the eskabllahment of r~tail distribu,ting fi.rms and eer.vice bueiness firms, the condit~.on of appraval require~ that each uae propooeci for eubje~t property ahall be d~ubmitted to tha Planninq Commiseion for rev.iew and dpproval !.n order that a datezmination mighk be made as ~o whether the propoaed use would ba Appro- priat~ for the aita and whether eufficient parkinq waR being Frovide~i on the Froperty to accommodate an additional p~rking demand create~d by euati a ueet that the pPtiti~oner hrsd iiidicated to stnff that there would b~e no retail buainese and no customer traffic~ that there ~aould be L-wo Qmployeer~ e~nd eaah wott].d dri~ve hig ow:~ truaks and that the aheet metal forming ecYuipment withir~ the unit wauld be used only for repairing broken ducts and would not be used as pa-rt of a ahaet met$1 ahop type o~exation. Commi3eioner Herbst offerod a motion, seconded by Commiseioner Allred, and MOTTOi~ CARRI~D, to approved the requeat for a maintenance ar.d service of heating and air conditi.oner uni.~s ay requested under Conditional Uae ~ermit No. 1218, as a pex'mi.tted use. I'f~M N0. 5 CONDi;IONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1333 (T. E. Lewie & Asaociates) Request for one-ysar exteneton of time ~o complete ~onditions on property lacated on the west side o£ Harbor Boulevaxd, north oE Ver.mont Avenue propoaed for expAnaion of s convalescent hoapxtal. Z~ninq Supervisor Charles Roberts preaent~d tc the Gommiasiai~ a requeAt from ths~ petitioner for a one-year exten~aion of Cime f~r the aompletion ~f conditi.ons of approval in gra~nting Conditional Use Permit No. 1333 foz the expansion of the exiating ~~~~valesr.ent hospital, ar3 furtlzer nating that any extension of time would have to be retroactive to February 17, 1973. ~ommiasioner Herbst offered e motion, eeaundec] by Commisaioner Farano, ar,d MbT70N CARRIED to grant a one yenr exteneion of time sctroa-cti.z to Pebruary 17, 1973 ar,d to expire Auqust 17, 197g for the completioii of cond•ltior.P of appruval of Conditional Use Permit No. 13~3. ITEM ':O. 6 3treet Sections for Tentative Map of Tract Na. 7587 Ofgice Enqia~eer Jay Titus advised the ~ommission that he'had pxesented to xhem a syno~aie oi *_??e events which had transpi.red betore th~ Commis~ion siace October 18, 1971 regsrdi;~g Tentat~ve Map of Tract No. 7587, anc~ it had been hie unQerstanding that at tha July 9, i:?3 Planning Cotnmiosioa reating ~hat the atrest s~andard had heen appxcved as submittEd provioualy excapt that the riding and hikinq trail wms to be located an tha north sid• at the atroet in the City o! Anaheim~ hoaever, ~~pan ine~ectian of the Minut~s aad further check o~ roved tepe of ~.~~e July 9, 1973 m~eting it wae lonnd that tha Commiesion had app ~ 28-took roadwa~r, which did no~ coincide witih a~cything wh~ch ata~f had presented previoualy, an~ tr.~st he had ~urtlter submitted a ekstch o~ what wae proposed ~or the atr~dt s~ction. ~ ~ MINUT~B~ CITY PLIINNINC COMMI58ION, Auqlt~t ~0~ 1973 ~~'~~~ 1,~h'AORTB AND RIOCONNBNDAT~ONB ioont'!l~ ITRM N~. G (aon~'d) Diooursi.on ws~ h~lA bsba~~n th• CaonmitRian ~r-4~ Mr. Titua on th• ok~toh aa pro- Npnt~d and what ~hM di!larsnao• w~r• lrom that oriqinally oorieidars4r anQ upan ita oonolunlan, Commiasion~r ~'araha n!'lerfa ~ motion, ~~acndaA by Cam~oirrion~r 1111reQ, ~na MO`~ZON CI-RR115D to ~pprcrrs the ~ts~eti seGt~011~ ~:~r TwntRtl.vs Itap u! Tract No. 7587 se p~z' oketah pre~~ntsd ht~ thA Bnqinesrinq Divi~ion india~tinq said Rtraet reotion• •nd proj~otinq *.h• zidiny and hiking tsail. an th~ north •ia• o! the ~treet aithin the City of~ Ansheim. T~MPORARX J1DJOpRNM6NT ~ Thex~r botnq ncs ~urthor businas• ~o air~auwr, Comm~.e~ionir ttsrbst olt~red a wotion ta sdjourn ~h~ an~stinq to l~ugu~t 29, 1973 at 7,00 o'cloak ~.M. !ar a work aeasion on Cienaxai Ttlan Am~adment Na. 1Z9, a~ aell a~ othar stuclieu pre~ently unda~ ai.~~usa~on~ Comml.aaiar-ar Farano s~ecor~ded the raotion. MOTIdN C1IRRTED. The mc,etinq +~djourn~d At 10~30 g.m. Rmapecttul~y subm3tted, ~~~Z~l/ ~~~/~i~e.r~ ANN KR~HS, 3e~retary Anaheim City Pl~snning Goanmiasiors