The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1974/01/210 R C 0 MICROFII.MINC SERVICE, IPI~;. .. ,, . ~~,.. .. ~ ,~„~ ... , , . , ~ ~ ~ C~,~x Hell Anaheim, Calixornia Jnnuary 2~~ 1974 RFGULAK MEEmING OF' THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMxS8TON REGULI#R - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City P1~nning Comir~iseion was NIEETING aalled to order ~y Chai.rman GauQr at 2:00 p.m., a quorum being pxesant. pRESENT - CHAtRMANs Gauer. ~ COMMISSIONERas Hezbet, King, Seym~ur. AHSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Ft~ran~. • (It wr~s nuted that n~,w Flanning Commissin ner Glen Johneon was pre$ent, hawever, he was not eligible ~o participate in the Plann:ing Commission mattere.) AI,SO pRESENT - Assiatant Dev~lopment Services Dir~ctor: Ronald ~hompeon ~eputy City Attorney: Frank Low~y Office Engineer: ~'ay Titua Traffia Enginaer: Edwar~ Granzaw Zoning Suparvisar: ~harles Rob~rta Assistant Zoning SuFervisor: Phillip Schwartze Commission Secretary: Patriaia Scanlan pLEUGE OF -- Commisaioner HerbRt led in the rledge of Allegiance to the ALLEGIANGE Flag of ta~~ ::: i*°~? States of America~ PRF:SENTATION TO FflFt1~~R - Chairman Gauer called Miss Ann ItY Planning Commiasion Secretary, T D. KrQbs, forme.r forwArd and present~d COMMISSION S A ECRE her with Rpsolution of Appreciation. All tha C~mmissionars joined iz~ expres sing their thanks ancl congratulations to Miss Krebs on her r~tir.ement following thirteen years of de voted servic;e to the Planning Commission. INTRODUCT~ON OF NEW - Depu~y City Attorney Frank Lowry ir~txoduced new PLANNING COMMISSIONER Planning Commi~sioner Glen L. Johnson, ~3nd advised ~hat due to t.he nsw laws governing city officigls, Mx. Johnson wa~ required to file certain documente to establi~h hi~ eligibila.ty ten days prior to taking hia seat on the Planning Commisaion. ~yVIRONMENTrIL IMPACT - REPOR7 N0. 110 REQ,ASSIFICATION Ne. 73-74-31 VARIAI~ICE NO. 2569 '~'ENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 8463, 8464, 8465, ANi7 8466 PUBLI~ HEARING. AN.a,f;EIM HILY,S ~ INC. AND TEXACO V~NTURES, INC.~ c/o Jamea L. Barisic, 360 Anahei.m Hills Road, Ar heim, Ca. 92807, Own,er. Property described as: An irrsgularLy-shaped parcel of land consisting of appYOxi-• mately 65 acres, having a frontage of approximately ~4?5 feet on ~he sou~h sid~ of Cany~on Rim Roac~, Y~avix,g a maximum d6pth af approximately 1800 feet, and being located approximately one mile northeast of the center- line of t~ohl Ranch Road. Property prasently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED GLASSIFICATION: R-H-10,000 RESTDENTIAL HILLSIDE~ LOW DE22SITY, SINGLE-F'AMILY, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIV~ (A) SIN~LE-FAMILY STRUCTURES REARTNG ON'LO Alv ART''RIAL HIGHWAY F~ND (B) MINIMUM PRIVATE ACC~SS1~lAY W1ilZ'H TO ESTABLISH FOUR TFtACT5 ZONL~D R-H-Z0,000 CQNTAINING A'~QTAL OF 163 LOTS. 74-21 ~ ~ MINUT~S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 21, 1~74 74^~2 ENVIRUNMENTAL INIPACT REPORT NO. llb, RI:CLASSI~TCATTON N0. 73-74-31, VARIANCE NO. 2569 ~ F1ND TEN~rATTVE MAP _QF TRA(;T N03~, 8463, 84fi4~ 8465~ AND 8466 (Cont' d. ) TENTATI:VE TRACT REQl1ESmS: ENGINEEA: WzLLDAN ASSOCIATF:S, 125 South C1audl.na Street, Anaheim, Ca. 92805. Subject property is propoeed for aubdiv~ ~ian as follows: ~'ract No. 8463 - 40 R-E3-10,000 zunod lotat Trnct No. 8464 - 42 R~H-10,000 zoned lakst Tract No. 0465 - 45 R-H-10,000 xoned lotst Traat N~. 84b6 - 36 R-F1-10,000 zoned lats. Subject petitians wers cantinued fram the~ meeting of December. IU, 1973~ at the request of the p~titioner. Asoistant Zoning Supervisor Phillip Schwar~ze notQd for ~he Commission t.hat the petitioner was requesting an additional continuance to the meeting ~f March 4, 1974, in order to submit revi.sed plana tu be heard in conjunction with submittal af additional requc~sts Eor PC "Plann~d Community" 7oning. Tt was further r~oted that the petitionQr was requesting approval oP Envir~nmental Impact Repor.t No. 110 at this meeti.ng. Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissi~ner H~rbst and MOTlON CARRIED {Commissioner Farano being absent) that the public hearing and con- sideration ot Reclasaification No. 73-74-31, Variance No. 2569 anr~ T~nta~ive Map of Tract Nos. ~463, 8464, 6465 and 8466 be continued to the meeting of March 4, 1974, as requested by th~ petitionex. Later on ir~ the meeting, Commissioner Seymaur offered a n~otion, seconded :,y Commissionpr Herbst and MOTZON CARRIED (Commiasioner Farano being absen~) that the Planning Commission, in conneation with the fi.ling of Environmental Impact Report No. 110, finds aizd d~terminea that the EIR Review Committee de~ermined that the report is adequate as an informative document. and follows the Ci.Ly's Pstablished guidelines and that there would be n~ significant adverse environmental im~acts; and, therefare, the Planning Co~~issic,, recom- mends to the City Cauncil tha~ said report be adopted as the Council's Environ- men~al Impact StatemEnt in conjunct~on with tY:s comments of the Orange Unified School District letter dated November 27, 1973. CONDITIGNAL USE - PUBY,IC HEARIbIG. LEE C. AND JOAN H. SAMMTS, 94 L~.nda Isle, pERMIT NO. 1443 Newport Beach, Ca. 92660, Owners; requestinq permission to ESTABLISH A PLANIVED UNIFIED INAUSTRT?~L SERVICE CENTEIt WITH RETAI'L DISTRII3UTING AND SERVICE BUSTN~SSES PRIN,ARILY SERVING COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY WITH WAIVERS OF (E1) PERMITTED USES AND (B) MTNIMUM REQUIR~D PARKING on property described as: Parcel 1- An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 9.3 acres, having a frontage of approx:matPl.y 830 feet on the easf szde of Valley Street, having a m:acimum deptn of aNproximately 890 feet, and being located approximately 36"~ feet north of the centerline of Cresoent Avenue, and fur~ther described as 700-~2C Valley Street; and Parcel 2- An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisti:ig of approximai:ely 3.9 acres, having a f~ontage of approximately 487 feet ~~ the north side of ~rescent Avenue and having a fro~ntaqe of dgproximately i40 feet on thz east side of Valley Street; and further descri.bed as 2101-2121 West Crescent Avenue. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUST.RIAL, ZONE. Subject petition waa continued from the n Pting ~f Decemk~er 27, ]973, for more detailed information and fuzther study. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Phil?.ip Schwartze noted fo~c the Commission that the petitinne.r was suggesting an additional tiwo-week continuar.cs in order to prepare and submit additi.onal information. Commissioner 3ey'm~ur offered a motian, ~econded by Commiasio~ner H~r.bst, and MOTIaN CARRIED (Commissioner Farano being absent) t~ continue public hesrinc~ s~nd aonaideratian of Conditianal Uae Permit No. 1443 to the meeting of February 4, 1974, as requested l~y the getitioner. ~ ~ ~ MTNUT~15, CITY PLAIVNING COMMISSION, Jr~n~iary 2] , 1974 74-23 REQUEST FOR PRI:PARATION OF R~.^~OLC7Ti^vii^a Gi APPRECIATIQN Commissioner Seymour uff~red a motion, seconded by Commiesioner Nerbet and MC)TION CARRIED by unan~.moua vote, tht~t Staf£ be and hereby i.a dixect4d to p~repare Appropriate RASOlutiona of Aupr~~c:i~tion in h~nor of retiring C.i~y C;lerk Dene Ua~ust and Purchasing Ageiit Haruld Dao~uet. RECLAS5IFICA'1'ION - CO~ITZNU~D PURI,IC HE1~-RING. SNTTIATED BY THF ANAHEIM CITY NC. 73-74- 35 PLANNING COMMIS; ION, 204 E$et Liiiao].n Avenue, Anahel.m, Ca, 'r ~'1805j pr~posing that proparty @escribAd as: An ":~" shnpad parcel o~ lgnd c~anei.sting ~~' approximaLely 137 A.:res, having dpproximate frontagee of 510 feot on the weat s~.de of ~:uclid Streot and approx3.~ mataly 2000 feet on the north si.de of La Palma Aven~3E, and being located approxi- mate~ly 330 feot west of the c~nterlino of Onondaga Street, Ioe reclasei,f.ie~d from the COUNTY R4, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL, DISTRICT AI~D C.LTY R-A, AGKICULTURAI~, ZONE to the CITY Or ANAHEIM R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Subject petition w~s cantinued from the meeting of January 7, 1974, in arder to b~e h~ard w3.th Reclassi~icatlon No. 73-7A-36 which was being r~+advertir.ed fox public tiearing on January 21, 1974. No ane appeared in opposition to subject peti~ion. A.lthouqh the Staff Report was not read at the public hearing, it i.s referred to and made a par~ o~ the minute:.. Asaistar-t Zoning Supervis~r Phillip Schw~~r~ze n~ted for the Commission t.hat the proposal was to r.eclassl~y subjpct groper*_y frnm the County c,f Orange R~ DiatriCt to the City of Anaheim R--A, Aqricultural, Zone upon annexation to the City of Anaheim. TFiE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLC~SED. Gommissiox~er Seymour offered a motion, seconded by Cummissioner. KincJ, anc3 MOTrON CARRIED (Commissioner Farano being absent}, that. the Planning Commission, in corinection with an exernption r~eclaration status request, finda and determines that the proposal would ha~-e no s•lgnif.icant environme,ntal impact and, therefore, rec~mmends to the City Counci~ that na Environmeiital Impar.t Statement is necessary. Commissioner Seymour offPZed Resolution No. PC74-9 and moved for its pas~age and adoption to recommend to the City Council. appra~al of Reclassification No. 73-74-35 subject tu completio~l of annexation of subject property tc~ the City of Anaheim. (See Resolution Bo~k) On r~7.1 call the foregoing reaolution AYES: COMMISSIONER~: Herbst, King, NOES : COt~tMISS IONERS : None . ABSENT: COMMTSSIONERS: Farano. GENEI2AL PLAN 11MENDMENT N0. ].30 was passed ry the following vote: Seymour, Gauer. - CONT.T.NUED PURLIC HEARINV. INITIATED BY TH~ ANAHEIM CITY PLAN~IING CO~fMZSSION, 204 East Lincoln Rvenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92805; to consider updAting the Anaheim General P~an re- l~ting to the area generally located between La Palma Avenue and the ktiversid~, Freeway and Euolid Street and Brookhurst Street. ENVIRONN~NTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED PUBI,IC tiEARING. BRIGHAM YOUN~ UNTVERSITY, a REPORT NO. 113 Utah non-profit corporation, 50 East South Tsmple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, Own~r; MATREYER HUMES, INC., RECLASSIFICATION P. 0. Box 711, Up].and~ Cae 91786, Agent; requestinq N0. 73-74-36 that property dsecribed as: Axi "L" shaped parcel of lanci consisting of approximately 137 acres, having approximate frontages of 510 feQt on the west side of Euclid Street and 2000 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue, and being located approximately 330 ~eet weak of the cente.rl.ine of Onondasga Street, be reclass3.fied from the R-A, AGRICL'LTURAI,, ZONE to the F::, PLANNED COMMUNITY, ZONE. Subject petitione were continued from the meeting of January 7, 1974, for reaclvertisement purposes. Approximatel~ four persons indicated their presence in opposi.tion to subject petiti.ons. ~' ~ ~ ~ MZNUTES, C~TX kLA13NING COMMIS5ION, .Tanuar~~ 21, 1974 74--'l4 GENF,RAL PLAN AMENDbi~N'I' NO. 130, i~NVl:'~)NMENTAL IM~ACT REPORT N0. 113, AND R~;CLASSIrICATInN NU. 73-74-36 (Continued) ",~ _ Assigtant Zoning Sape~visor Phillip Schwar~.zo r.ead tt~e Staff Report ta the Commiseion dat~?3 January 21, 1974, and sAid report is referred to ac~ if set forth in flll~. in the minuL•es. Mr. ~71m Christiansen, repr.esenting th~ deveJ.opor, app~sared befo•re the Comm~ssion and r~tnted concerriing tha hi^to~:y of th~ praperty thnt Brigham Youn~ University purcllased the sub;ject prapexty ao~ne Ei.f•;.een ~ears ago with the idea of plr~ciny a collegR there a>> an axtension of their Ui~iversity in the 5tate of Utah= that the coots o~ constr.uc?:ion had increasod and i~ bocame appar~nt to L•he Univeraity ~hat they could nat m~i.ntain colleges throughout the Unifisd Statr.s, and hc~nce- for~h they developed ~ n~:w program refc~rrad to as a re].igious institui:e f.or tra,tning in con junrtion with aaademic training at ad jacen,t coll.ec~es and iiniver- eitieR; that sinca the City of ~lnahei.m was inter,ested in acquiri.ng a park site n~a~ John Marshall Elemeatary School, and previous discuesions had been held bEtweeri ~he University and the (:ity, they f.e?t~ a mor.al ahligatior~ to set a~ide I the original 6 acrey plu~ khe additional acrQage whi.ch the City had indicated was dPSirable ~or the park; that when the ~r~perty ~.va~ madE av~ilable by the University £or p~~rchase, they had proaeeded to get counsel ana advi,ae for the c?evelopment of tlle proje~tt that their p~licy wa~ to kePp the pcople in the area informed, tu xnake their dccisiana equi.table and to provide feedbacl~ which they needed; that ~hey had m~t with the City and had ii~~m~rous meetings and made some resultant changes to their project a~ well as to their Environmental Impact Report; that regarding the use arrived at for tl~e pr~~erty, ~chey had met with ~eople in th~ area~ the Chamber of Cammerce~ representatives of the Martin Luther Hospital, and the schools to £irid the best and highest use xor tl~e property to sexve L•he community in a profitable manr~er•. Mr. Bill Matreyek, the developer, apQeared before the Com.r,~ission and adviqecl that Messrs. Doyle Alexander and Tioward Pag~ were present, representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Lat~~r Day Sai.nts, and he further 3tar~d that he hoped the pe~ple who were present in oppositian woulc~ n~t make stateinents un- lASS they had substantiating facts. Mr. Ralph Mart~n, representir..g Walter Richardson & Associates, land de~~elopment consuli:ants, appeared before the Commission and stated they were proud of the pro~ec~ being pY'esented to Che CiL-y~ that would also h~ve a tremendous impact; +t;at they had 3ome differences cf opini~r~ with the City S~aff regarding the developmeiit; tlzat they were de~iruus of displaying a type of residential devel- opment with some commercial alid offic:e space; that there was a reside:ztial market in the northerly par~ af the City; that he understood the len.gth o~ t.ime the surr~unding neighborhood had been in exi3tence, h~wever, the people who lived there did not present.ly have the opportunity to changE their li~e style; that the gubject location was unique, particularly becavse of the regional transportation and nearby freeway syst.em; ~hat philosc~p~ically th~y disagreed with the City in the method of computing density, and .it was not the density tk?at was important but ~~he impacts created p~rtaining tn the traffic capacity in thP area and the impact fln the City schools; that the subject pr.op- erty was in a neighborhood of a traf~ic generation situation; that regarding density the 12 units per. acre which thcy proposed was acceptable te the Citx; that with s~ecific regard to the proje~,t with relation to its locatio2~ near the freeway, it was unlike remote property; that Stai= wa~ :.~ the opinion that a band of. single-family residences shouid be providec~ to buffer the existing residences from the proposed project, however, they wanted to work with the people inatead to minimize the traffic and there wa:~ no raason, in his opinion, why the area could not live gracefully with the proposal; that as a result of this project, there was a poss~ibility that buses would be re-routed to the subject area; that the typ~ residents expected to reside in the prop~se~ devpl- opment would be inclined to use transit tran _.tation and it would be more amenable; that further mitigating circumstanc~s included nearby faciLities s~ich as a medical facility, ahopping center, and others within walking distance; that they felt strangly that the property shoulc3 have a plan devised to cause people to want to livr~ thexe; that rather than a mundane characi;er, they ~r~posed a lake which would be ~"publ.icJbackyard" ~ark, maintained by the peopl.e who lived there; that in add~.tion to th,e l.ake with a w~.de shore~ine, thex pz'oposed Qther o ~ MIPIUTCS, CZTY PLANNING C'OMMTSSION~ Jenuary 21~ 197a 74-25 C,ENERAL PLI~N AMENUMt:NT NO. 130, ENVIItQNMENTI~L IMFA(:T REf?ORT NO. ].13, AND I~JECT,ASSIFICA.TION ~4. 73-74-~6 (Conti,nued~ ~„~,_,_,. rerrontiona]. f.aci;ities tnilc~r~~d to ~mall r..~.~ret thmt they wero aleo pro~~aing a 1.dk~a area for ~h~ affict~ parkt tF~at the street off. Lu Palma wae L•o compliment the naiqhbqrhood shopping con~ez whiah wa~ part of tho proposed davol~rime~nt~ and that tl~e ahopping conter wa~ n~,cesea::y to the d~velopment and anme cervice xrea~ would be extended beyond tlla borders of subject ~roperty. Mr. Mnrtin made a slide presentatiart and. atated regarding t.raffic that ~hAy would pr.Qfer not to connect with the ainglo-f.amiiy area lying ta the westt howevar, continuity was d~:~.irabl.a .from the City's ekandpoin~ and they wers agreedble ro that posaibility. Mr. JamPS Arnerich, ral~res~:nting Fozeat I.uwn Cemetery Asaoci.ation, appoared bc3f~ra the Commisaion i.n op~~or~it: tc~ aub~ect ~etitions and stat~d his organ- ization was not contac.t~d at all in cc,nnc.ction w9.th the proposed development; that their pron~ ty was located froi~ti~~g ori Euclid between Medical Center Dr.ivQ ar.d Ramneya llrive and clevel.oped with 5ti medical and d~:nta1 officesj that they c3id nat abjec.t to the development an suck~ but to the circulation proposed for sai.d development; that with thCir m~dical facilities, the pra~~o~l would cr~ate a tr~ffi.c prob.lem~ that it was their understanding that one ot the departments of the Ci.ty ha~ rec~mmended thut there be no le~t~tuxn permitted f~'om the new project at Buclid ati the extension of Coronet (tleai~al Cen~er Drive) and that meant that people wk~o were in the off:Lce park of the proposed developm~:nt dosiring t~ mak~ a left turn on Euclid woul.d have to make sevez•al left turns and then t~irn on Romr~sya; tha* ~hey fe ~-ed the patrons of the officQ pHrk would chose to avoid the long t-rip azound to the west and would crosa over their property whi..ch wa~ immediately s~uth of the offic~ park; that 'the map indicated Ghree proposed driveways ~vhich wEre lacated directly acros~ from the thr.ee drive~,~ays ~f th~ir property, enco~.raqing the pe~ple t~ cut across; that the traffic circulation pattern of t~e ~,roposed d~velopm~nt funneled everything through R~nnneya and Medical Center Dzive; that it waa their suggestion that a better traffic circulation pattern k,e dpvelorQd and he pr~~ented a,nap showing what his organizatioii thought was desirable. Ne f~irther stated that the traf- fic should be funneled away from the hospitaa. facility. Upon questianir~g of Chairman Gauer, Mr. Arneric.h explained from ths map ~f the developar, that most of the traffic was in the easterly di.rection and he woul~ l.eave his maps for the consideration of the Planning Commission. Mrs. Joanne Cowell appeared baFore i:he Comrnassion as rPOresen~ative of the home- owners in the area to thE ~outh and southwest, :' opposition t~ subject petiti~ns, a~nd stated that the intersection of Brookhurst and L~~ Palma was one o~ thP worst crossing areas in the City for the children; tttat the homaowners understaod the Gi*_y had an option for park land in cor.nection with the propossd developmen~; that there was a playground problpm at John Marshall Sch~~l; ~hat at the presenk time the cr~ildren~ at the school were allow~ea to have otie play period a day due to the lack of playgrounds and the thought of adding more children to the area was bad; that drivin~ by John Mar.ahall School it appeared from the ;:ront that there w~s a large play area, but that porti~n was owned by the City and was r.ot developed; tha'-. in comparison, Mel Gauer School hac~ a playground L•ive times aa large as that at Jnht1 Marshall Schnol; that at the present t.ime the parents did not want their school-aged children to come home for lunch because of the dang- erous crossing of the streetsj that between the hours of 4:00 and 6:OC p.m., the traffic in the area was backed vp from the freeways~ etc., and a new freeway ramp that may be requir~d to be constructed due to the preposed development wnuld generate additional traffic; that there was a lake pro?^~ised far the Anaheim Hills development t}iat was never realized and she doubted the one beir~g proposed for the subject development; that although s11e had ta]t:ed with Mr. Christiansen on several occasions, the neighbors had na knowledc;~ of thase converaatiane a.nd they had no~ been cor..tactedt that the residents ~ere requestiny a niqht meeting so that they could be heard and told about the proposalt tha*_ she was interested to know what impact tYle development would have upon her property and the children in the area. Thereupon, Mrs. Cowell requeatec? a cor.tinuance of th~ aubject petitions to an evening meeting in order that the property owners could be present. ~ ~ ~ MINUTrS, CITY. PI,ANNTNG CUDINIISSTON, Jan~iary 2L, 1974 74-~26 l~El~ERI~ PLAt~ 1-MENDNIENT N0. 130, ~NVIRONN~NTAL IMPACT R£POFtT N0. 11.3, ANU R~CLASSIFICATION N0. 73-74-36 (C~ntinaed) Mr.. C:z~aig tialob~eki, ?.OG3 West Romneya Drive, Anat~~lm, ap~aar.ad befor~ the C~mmiaeion and qt~estionFd the traf.fic pattern fo.r the proposod developmont. He atated }iis objoctians to ~I1a incrsased traffic aena ity of the area. Mr. L~ui~ Daxter, 3Q5 North Ranchi.to, Anaheim, app~r~red bo£ore the Commi~aian in ~ppoaitior~ to subj~ct. pc~titions and st~ted acariomics were irt~portant and that the City would probabl>> hAVe to overlook the possibili ty of liaving a community college in the subject areaT t.hat coracer.nin~~ the 11igh~st ~nd ~est uso ~£ the land, the large dovelopeze camo in with adult ]iving canaeuts dnd in his apinl.on there were too many develonme~nta with adult liv:Lngt that fox uniP~rmity, tha land shotild be develop~d wi.th residentta: homeet thai: L•he homdowners in the araa would :li.ke t~ ac~e hames therej and that in tha lonq ZI~Il perhAps the J.and could be enhanced by devPloping it with homPS. Mz. A. Costello, 1.235 NortY- Eio? ly Str~ct, Anaheim, appoaxed before ti~e Commis- si~~i in favor ~f subjeci. petitions and presen~ed a petiti.on wi~h aapraximatoly ?,S signatures aL ti~e residents wh~ resided for the most }~art on tlolly ~treet. He atAt~d the persons who signed the p~:tition wera des~.raus of having the pr~- posed devolopment appraved ~rimarily as it would kpgradi~ the neiqhborhood; thnt in thoir apinic,n, the parce]. would ult~.mately be dev~l~ped for ~ome use; that the developer was giv~ng the City t:he option t~ pux•cha~~e 9.7 acr.es oi th~ land f.or a park at a ver.y low price; that the ~.lan renresenl:ed the hi.ghc~st and bes~ u~e of the land provided n~ two-s~;.ory dwellings were conskx~ucted closer than 15U feet ~rom their existinq gingle-family resident:lal pzoperty lines and wit;1- out any majar variations. In rebuti:al., Mr. Christians~n stated he wo~ilc~ have met ~-ith Mrs. Cowe].1 earlier, b~.t she indicated it was not necessary, h~~wever, he woul.d be happy to clo so if she felt the necessity. Mrs. Cowell. indicated he.r request was to meet wi~h the Planning Commtssion and ~he developer jointly; and that ~he homeownera wanted to t~ave their vaice Y-eard by the Planning ~ommission as ~hey were taxpay e r.s in the area. Mr. Christzansen further repl'.e~ that the pec~ple pres ent ut this meeting were those most a£fected by the development; that there w~ere approximatel~~ 2'7 homes a~uttirg the stibject prope:.ty and the overwhel.-:ling ma jori*y of the residei~tial pr.oper.ties did not abut subject property; that while Mr. Martin and Lhe Cit.y Traffic Engineer cauld k~est aa~wer the questions reldtir~g to traffic putterns, he stated ther.e would be a traffic signal ~n La PalmR thak would give the resi- dents accesa t.o La Palma. He further stated that they had talked to the people in the area who L-hey tk~ought were the property owner ~j that thcy wexe unsuccess- ful in cuntacting the peaple at the Forest Lawn Ceme ter~ Association, and that th~y h~d talked with the peop].e at Martin Luth~r Hos pi"al. Mr. Martin stated regarding traffic that the propert ies to the south of the subject property were inv~stigated and along Euciid there wa~ na opportunity ~~r left turns inta the extensi.on of Coronet; that it ~v~as absolu~ely essential to have left and right turns a~ Euclid; that he unde retood it would be impos- ~ib'le to exit from subject property onto Euclid; tha t they 'Zad teleqat~d to hat~e a left tu:n out Romneya and connect- on La Palma ; that they did not r,eed connections to Falmoixth and Romneya along the caster 1y side af the proner~ty as thers would be a secondary means of access ~r~m Ls P alma; that i.t woul.d be possible to have an emerqency connection on Romneya without genr.ral traffic into the residential area; ~hat the predominant movernent £rom the subject property would be out to La ~alma ~nd they were so s uggesting. He further asgured the residen~s that a lake would be built. Traffic Engineer ~d Granzow notcd f~r thE Commi.ssion that ~he City had reviewed th.e traffic in the area being discussed over the pas t year and there was sub- stantial agreament with what the traffic engineer fo r th~ developer had indi- cated; that there would be a connect.:~n to the west of subject property to relieve some of the current problems of the area ge t ti.ng ento Hrookhurst Street; that the State should be beginning the modifications of the freeway ramps within the next six to eight manths ana this woul.d greatly relieve the congestion; that a new freeway ramp would be conn~cted to nor.thbnund tzaf~ic, whick~ woulu r~piace the oId ramp; that a ner~ ramp would be constructed r~n the east side of Brook- hurst which would ~elieve the traffic at the inters ection; that the contention ~ ~ MINUTFS, Cz'rY. PL7ANNI.NG COMMISSION, January 21, 1974 74-27 GENERI~L PLAN AMENDNt~P~T NO. 13U, ENVIROi~MENTAL IMPACT REI'ORT NO. 113, AND RECLASSIFTCATION NA. %3-74~36 (Conti.nuec-- ` was that sub~ect praper.ty woulr3 be deve~apod som~time in the future, if not now, and ~n the basie of thA Acrer~ye, the tra~fic would h9 abcu" tho s+ame regurdless af tha type project; that regarding the medical r.Anter, the freoway off-ram;~ was very busy, however, a fxaffir, signal c;~ulci not be tnstall9d at that locatian; and thAt R~mneya- r-nd La Paltna waulc.! be ~ri.gna2lzed in+~~ the gxtating aynchroni.zed byetem. 'PHE PUBLIC HEARING WA5 CLOSED. Upon inquiry nf Commissioner Seymour, Mr. Granzow advised regardl~ss of the manner in which sul~ ject property was develaped, there woulcl be traPFic genc~r- ated and t.hat he had not indicated there was ~ craf.fic problem; that Romnaya was the logical i:hrUUgh atr~Pt in tho area, and tf i.t c~.uld he i:aken through to ~3rookhurst, lt would hel.p to ~olve the pr~blNm~, hawever, Ramneya wae a residentiaL streat= that the traffic £rom the subj~at proper~;J would be low volume or abo~~t 300 to ~100 cars per day; tha-- Romneya would be uti].ized out to La Pa1mR to geti to the freeway. Commissianer Seymour noted that on~ of thQ c;ircula~ion plans ~rasented by Mr. Martin indic~ted a loop Rystem that would complei:ely isa~.ate the develop- ment as a cammunity and he inquirQd what the n~gative aspects of such a circulation plan were. Mr. Granzow advised that the cul-de-sac streets created by the loop pzovided an exce~.lent liv~ing atn~osphere, howevgr, the people ob jeoted i:o thQ fact that they had n~ circulatiocz other thar. by the use of a main street. Upox, questioni.ng of Chairman Gauer, Mz. Christiansen ata~.ed the ~riginal plan wus for the City to have 6 acres ot ~hP land for a park, however, on December 18, 1973, th~ City Cotxncil indicated th~ir desi.re to have 9.2 acres for the park . _ :Jpon inqu~.ry of Commissioner Seymour, Assistant Dev~lopment Services Director Ronald Thompson advi.sed thE proposed ordinance sPtting forttl deve.l.opment stand- ards for cond~miniums and tcwnhouses would be a~vailable in approximately two months. Mr. Thompson further adviaed that many of the c;oncer.ns had beer ironed out through the conditicn~l ~•~e permit and v~riance procedure. Commi ~sioner Seymau~• noted thaL ne propo~ed dev~Lopn~ent was of ~reat magnitiude; that he did not knaw the prajected time for coznpl~tian of the project; that the community had looked at the land as a potential college site; that th~ propas~d density was 12.7 units per acre for the condominium portion af tlie projeat; that philosophically the guestion was whether it was right to mo~~e from a s~i.e tr.at was in the Analieim General Plan as a college site to a density rouqhly twice that of un R-1 development; that he would question just how much of the hi.ghei condominiuzn-type density was in the best interest of the City of Anaheim for planning on th~.s site; that he had some reservations regazcling t.he overall dens?.ty of the project though it appeared to be a we11 thought cut and caell pres ented p lan; that he b~lieved a lake would be built if. the~ ~o indicated, and he clarif.ied that the reason ~he Anahei.m Hills develc~pment did nat have a lake was becaus~ it was found out through geolagical studies that it was not economically feasible. Commissi.oner Seyn-our cor_tinued by stiating the proposed den.sity was not clearly justified in his thinking yet; that since ~he project had such an immezise effect ~n the communi.ty, he would prefer tl~at it be con- side rad by a full Commiesion; th~t he would also ~ike to have Mrs. Cowell's req~iest nonore3 by holdxng an evening meeting. N,r. Christiansen stated the project would -ake from three to five year3 to complete and that the density for the entire pruject, including the :~;obilehomes, was 8.3 units per aare. TY:ereupon, Commissioner Seymaur of.fere~i a motion, seconded by Commissi.aner King, to reopen the public heaxing and continue consideration of General Plan Amend- men t No. Z30 ;readvertised), ~n~ironmental Impact Feport No. 113, and Reclassi- fication No. ?3-?4-36 to the meeting of FebruGry 20, 1974, in order. that the matter c;az~ be considered by a full Commission and said hearing to be sc.aeduled tor an evening sessian in order that the property ownera in the area may be present. M ~ ~J MINUT~S, C:LTY I'LANNINC COMMIS:iION, JAnuary 21, 1974 74'28 GEN~RIIL PLAN AMENDNIENT NO. 130, ENVIRANI~:NTAL IMPACT ItEPORT N0. 3,13, AND RECLASSIFICATIUN N0. 73-7A-36 (Continued) ,,,_ _ _ ___ , -- r._. Mr. Chri.~ati.aneen requeeted ~hn indulgenae af. tlne Planning Commisnion and stnte~i tie was ra~her diaappointed~ ~hnt the oppoaition wae not aubstdntial~ th~t they had preaentc~Z ~etitione in Pavor of tihe development whioh tar outweighed the oppoeitiont that thoy had m~-de conce~eiona to da the things the way Che property own~re wanted tihem nncl ths wa,iting poriod w~e cos tinq tham ~neyt that they had t:ripd to give every~ne a chr~nca to be iiearcl Rnd thore wme no v+~lid ree.s~n Por tsa extene ion af the publi a h~aring . Commiael.oner Seymour notez i:hat tt~e reas~n for tha cantinuanr.e was n~t on behalf of thQ people, but that tho ~.ntent wa~ to have the mat~er conaidered by ; f.ull Commiegian= thz~t the d~velopers wauld be living with the~ praject tor r~;.~proxi- mately five yeara dur.ing itg constxuction and although hP ~~illy understood what the developers had gone tt-.rougll with the Staff, he w~s~ c~ztain this was th~ fir~t time t}:e C~mmisRion tind seen the projec~.~ that becauae of its magnitude he could i~~ no way vote o~n the project at tliis time because there wag not the norrnal exchange that took place with t}ie Planni.nq Commiesion tte a body since the Commiasion was ahort tt:r.eA memb~rF, at thi~ timQ. The foregoing moti~n carriad by una ~mous vote (~ommiasianor rarano being absent). RECESS - Chaizman vauer declar~:d a ten-minute raassa dt 3:40 p.m. RF.CONVENE - Chairman Gaue:r rQCOnvened the meeting at 3s50 p.m. with - Commissioner F'arana being absent. ENVIRUNMENTAL IMPACT - CONTTNUED PUBLIC FiEARING. STATE OF GAi+1FORNIA, DEPART- x 2304 B 0 R~PO~2T NO. 107 , o . MENT Oi~ TRANSPORTATION, Di~trict 7r P. 90054 and PRUDENCTO E. YO1tBA, c/o RECLASSIFICATION Los An.geles, Ca. Alber': Yorba, 2091~ Esperanza Road~ Anahe~.m, Ca. 928Q6, uel D~ive 366 San Mi N0. 73-74-27 --' , g Owners; '4VILLIAM F. LYON COD~ANY, Suit•~3 201, N~wport Beach, Ca. 92660, Agent• Property VARIANCE NO. 2565 deacribed as: An irreg~xlarly-shaped paroel af land a front- h~vin s 23 7 ' g , acra . conE.is ta.ng of ap~~rox mately TENTATIVE MAP OF 8511 age oF approximately 720 feet on the south side of erial Highway, having ~ maximum depth oP appraximately Im , TRACT NO. 1 REVISICN NO p 640 feet, and baing~ located nortlzw~aterly nf the inteX- . se<:ticn of Orangetho::pe Avenue and Imperi~al Highway. Prc~perty presently clu~sified COLINTY A~, AGRICULTURAL, D~STRICT. RE(2UESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-~, MULTIPLE-^AMI7.~Y RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WATV~'RS OF (A) MAXTMUM PEkMITTED xiEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF AN R-A ZONE i4NA (B) RE~UIRED MASONRY WAL~~ ABUTTING A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTLAL ZONE, Td ESTBALxSH A 248-UNIT MULTIPLE RF.~rAENTTA'L AEVELOPMENT. Tk,NTATIVE TRACT REQt";~T: DEVELOPER: WILLIAM F. LYON COMPANY, 366 San Mi.guel DrivQ, Suite 201, Newport Beach, Ca. 92660; ~ ENGINEER: TOU°S ENGINEERING, INC., 1010 North Main Stree~t, Santa Ana, Ca. 92'701. Subject tract is proposed for subdivisian into seven R-2 zoneci lats. Subject petitior~s were continued from the meetings of November 26 and December 27, 1973, in ordQr to allow the potitioner time ta submit revised ~lans. Appro:cimately 24 per.sons indicated their presence in oppositian to subject petitions. Assistant Z~ning 5upervisar Phi].lip Schwartze read portions of the Staff Report to the Commis~ion dated Ja:~uazy 21, 19i4, and said Staff Repor~ is referred to ag if set f~rth in full in the minutes. ~ ~ MINUTES, GITX PI,ANNINr COMMISSION, Janu~ry ll, ].974 ~4"29 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. YQ7, RECL1\uSTFICATION N0. 73-74^27, V?1ItIANCE N0. 2565, AND 'l~NTATIVE MAP OF T12ACT N0. 8511, R~.VISION 1V0. 1 (~ont~.nued) . _ _ _._._.`.._ ._..r_____ Mr. Pa'ter Ochs, ropreaonting ~he ageYit for the pr~pertX ~wner, ap~eaxec3 befoze the Cammiasion ~nd 9tatod sinca the Decemba.r 27, 1973 meeti.ng, they had rovised their plans to reflect cortain changee relating to parking and density which wero points of: aoncern axproased by ~he Planning Commissioni tha~ regardir-r pr~rking, the C~mmiaeian had expre~sed a minimum of 2.5si ratio and the rev.ised plans ref].ected 2.58:1 to adequataly solve the parking problem~ that rogardinq deneity; the Comn+iseion had requested a reduction to no moro than l.2 unite per a~re, that they tiad originally proposed 13.7 and tho reviaed plena reflected j~st under 12 unit~~ per aorej that adjacer,t to the R-1 devolopmont ro the nortYi- weat, they hrad revisPd the plans to reflect a duplex areat that L•he ~~rojer,t preaently hacl 14 acres of open space and the denaity had laeen reduced a.5~ since tho origin~l presentationJ thdt thoy felt ~hey had met every c~ndition that was rAiaed and were requasting favorable consideratian of thg proposal. Mr. Draughon, 1927 Elder Glen Circle, Anaheim, appeared befcre the Cammir~sion and s~ated he was repreaenting approximat.ely 200 r~sidents in thQ area in opposition; that. although the Cit}~ ~taff. R~port inciicated the density w~s with- in the 12 uni.ts pei- acre pe~L~cni.tted, according to the Orange County P~.anni.iig Commission's letter of January 14, 1974, 65$ o~ the proposed development wa~ incor-sistent with tt~e ~,and Use Element af i~he 1983 General P1ar. of the County. He continued thai: ma.ny of the propezty owner.s in the existing tract were presently parking in the streetat that over half of the on-stre~t parking in thc~ existing trac~ waa b~~ing used at the pre3ent ~ime; that in their opinion the parking proposecl to be provided was inadequate as there wa~ no reason to assume that the pre~ent trend in th~ existing d~vel~pment would not c~ntinae; that, referr~ng to a technical bulletin, the number of cY~ildren of townhouse owners wa~ no different from single-fami].y property owr~Rrs atid the required amount of parking was the same; that regarding recreatic:~; the proposal had on~y two swimming pools to serve the pro~ect with 232 unitsf that he wou].d not be willing to entrust the mainL•enance of the open space Lo a homeowners a.seocia- tion as, in hie o~i.ni.on, they did not do a gcod job, and the open ypace wotxld deteriorate and become a liabili.ty instead of an asset; that several of the units were already displaying rental signs; that a technical bulletin indicated homeowner~ and renters had dif£erent interests; tha*_ the payment to the main- tenance fund would not yive voting rigk-t to the propexty owner; that the prr~- posed units wer~ all Ei~c:~ric Medallion Homes and, in view of the energy crisis, he indicated the praperty owners needed assurance tl~at the development would not place an undue burden on the surrounding coml-unityt that the hameowners had e~:pressed their dissention regarding the traffic circulation pattern d,iscussed and that Little study had bezn given to detexmine the validity o£ their opposi- tion; that Cresthili drive was not designed to c~xry the trafPic that would be generated f.rom the proposed development and a definite tra~fic hazard would be crea~ed; that if Cresthil]. Drive was nat iised for access to the proposed deveJ.•- opment, no one would be deprived of emergency ser~vices; that there were no public parks ~r recreation~Z facilities in the area and the open space being gro~ided in the subject development would not meet the needs of the comrnunity; that the proposed density was i:oo high and ther~ were many directiy related problpms which included lack of recreational f«cilities, inadequa'ce scho~ls, animal control, etc.; and that the existin~ residents in the community were the citiz.:ns of Aiiaheim. In rebuttal, Mr. Ochs stated in view of the previous hearings on this matter, it was unfair to the deuelopers, thosa residents who had alreadk met, and to tha Planning Commission ta suddenly bring up a new set of issues; that he was understanding and sympathotic t~ the Crssthill Drive issuest howc~ver, he thought they had met all the standards of ~he Planning Commission; that the propos~l was an outstanding plan and he was respectfully requesting approval of same. Upon inquiry of Chai.r.m~n Gauer, the res~dents a.ndicated the public schooLs in the area wer~ not open to tha public far recreation. Chxirman Gauer suggested that the Commission would work with Parks and Recreation to see if those school tacilities could be kept open and made available to help reZieve th~ recrea- tional facility situation in the ar~a; tk~at perhaps the schools could be kept ~pen during the summer an ` on ~aturdays during tkia schaoi year and that if this could be accomplished it would provide quite a bit of recreational fa~i~ities. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COtdMISSi(~N, January 21, 197A 74-30 ENVIRONMENT~IZ IMPACT REPnRT N0. 107, FtECJ~ASSIFICRTtON NO. 73-74-27, VARIANCE N0. 2565, ANb TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO~ 8511~ RF:VISI~N N0. 1~Catti.nued) Zor~ing Suparvi~aor Charle~a Roberta advieed that the playground site at tho school in the immediate ared was not conetruc:ted and ho did not know the intent of the Placentia Schaul. Dietrict in ~hat regr~r.d. Chair.man Cauer notod that all the suhools in the Anxheim School D~strict were aveilable t~ the publtc and solved the rPCreational faoilltles px~blem to a cert~in ex~en~.• Upon questioning by the Commission Rs to why the,y hud not heard proviously from Mr. Draughon, Mr. DrAUghon indicated he had attended 'tilZ'P.B hoarings on tl:e mattert that the residenta had dealt fair].y wi_th the davelapext ~nd that thQy felt the concern regardin~ density ahould b~: abaUlutely covered. Upon inqui.r.y of Commiasioner Seymour, Mr. Schwartze ad~-isod ~he Mas*.er Plan indicated the praposed area i;o bo devel~~ped with from 8 to 18 an~.ta per t~cre. TH~ PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLUSEDo Commissioner ~eymour offered a motion, eecondeQ by Commisai.onar King, and MOTI~N ~ARRIEA (Gommissioner F'arano b~ i.ng abr~ent) that the Ptann~ng Commiseion, in connec~ion with the filing n£ Environmental Impact Report N~e 107, the addandum to whic:h reflects changea in the revised exhibit r~s submitted and has not been reviewed by the EIR Hovi~w Committae, finc~s az~d determinos t•.hat the E]:R lteview Committee determined that ~:he report is adequate as ~n informt~t.ive documont and follows the City°a established guidelines; and that there would be no significant adversp snvironmenL•al tmpactf and, therefore, the P7.$nning Conunission reaffirms its previoua aGti~n takeri at the meQting of December 27, 1973, and reconnnenda to the City Council that saicl report az~d adclendum be adopted as the Counait's Environmental Ympact Stateraent. Commissiorier Herbst offered R~soluti.on No. PC74-10 and moved for its passaqe ~nd adoption to recommend to the City C~+~nc:il that Petition for Rec~.ass~fica- tion No. 73-'~4-27 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) Commis3ioner Seymour noted t'~at he was in accord with the resolutian of approval because the project had been revised to the best possible standards; that the prcject ko t.he south had a much higher densit~; i:hat buffering was being pro- vided to the existing R-1 tract; that, in his opinion, the development exceeded thp requirAments; that the proposed dengity was within the guidelines of the Planning Commission; that he fcund same dissatisfaction with the traffic f.rom the development througt~ Cresthill Drive, however, it appeared there was no other way to ~rovide the ess~ntial circulati~n. Commissioner Herbst noted that Cresthill Drive must coiitinue through the pro- posed development £or the Circulation Element of the City; that Cresthill Drive wa~ a two-way street which presently was bei.ng traveled in one direction; that the traffic from ~he two areas would be reciproca.l= and that circulation was imperati.ve to gaod living environment. On roll call the foregoing resolution was ~assed by the following vo*_e: AYES: ~OMMISSIONERSs Herbst, i(ing, Seymour, C,au.er. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CGMMISSIANERSs Fdrano. Commission~:r Herbst off~red Resolutior. No. PC74-11 and moved Paz its p~ssage and adoption to grant Variance No. 2565, waiving maximum permitted height within 150 feet of an R-A ~one on the basis that the existing R-R property to the south- east of subject property is tentatively praposed for future development of an R-3 apartment project and a C-1 conunercial si~e; and waiving xequired ma~onry wall abuttix~g a single--family res~.dential zone on the basis that the glaccment ~f the proposed 5-foot masonry wa11 at the top of the slope ak~utting RS-5000 properti-~, in conjunction wi~h an existing wood fence at the toe of tt~e slope of the property line abutting the RS-~5000 propertiss~ wi].1 provide the best possible screening for tih~ I~S-5000 properties; and subject to conditions. (See Resal.ution Book) On rcll call the foregoing resulution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMI5SIOI~ERS: Herbst, Iting, Seymour, Gauer. NOES: COMMISSIONERSs I~one• ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Farano. • ~ MINU'.CES, CITY PLANNING COMMFSSION, Januazy 21~ ].S74 ,4_~~ ENVIRONMENTAL ~MPACT REPORT N~. 107, RECLnS:;tFtCATTON N0. 73-74-27~ 'VARIANCE N0. 2565, AI~D TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NU. 8511, REVISION N0. 1~Cantinued) _ C~mmias~iur~~r ltrrbst offe+red a motion, aecondecl by Commi.aaioner Seymour dnd MOTIUN CARRTEI) (Commiasioner Farano being abeent) to approve Ten~ative Map of Tract No. 8511, Revieion Nn. 1, sub~ect to the £ollowing cand~.tions: (1) Tha~. the approval of Tontativ~ Map of Tract N~a. 8511, Revision No. l, ia granted sub ject to the approvel ~f Racl~ :sificr~~ion No. 73-~4-27 and Variance No. 2565, ~2, di.visionuleachieubdivision~thereofVShalldno~submittednin~tenta- tive form far approval. (3j That a17. lo~ts within ~his traat shall be served by underqround utilities. (4) That a final traat inap of subject pr~perty shall ba eubmitted to and approved by th~ City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Grange County Recordar. (5) That str.eet names ahall be approvsd by the City of Anaheim ~ri~r to approval of a£inal tract map. (6) That the owner(s) uf subject property shall,pay ta the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreatian i;t-lieu f.ees as detex~mined to be appropriate by the Ci~y Ccuncil, ~ai1 fees to be paid at th~ time the building permit ia is~ued. (7) 7.~hat. drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner sati.sfactor~ to the City Engineer. (8) That all private streets sh~ll be developed in acc~ ~tce with the City c~f ~lnaheim's standarda for priv~te 3tree~ (9) That fire hydrants sYxa17. be installeci and charged as required and detern-ir,ed to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commenaement of structural framin~. (10) mhat the covenants, conditions and restrictions ahall be sub- mittod to and approved by the ~ity Attorney's OfPice pria.r to City Council approval ~f the final tract map, and, £urther, that the approved covenants, condit.ions and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. (11) That prior to filing th~ final tract man, the appl.icant :+hall submit to the City Attorney .for approval or denial a com~~le~te synopsis of the propased funczioninq of the operating cozPoratian, including but not limit~d to the articles of incarporatio:t bylaws, proposed methods of management, bonding to insure maintena:~ce of com~mon property and buildings, and such other inf.ormation a~~ the City Httorney mav desire t~ pxatect ttie City, its citizens, and tihe purchaser~ of the project. (12) 'rhat grading, exa~vation, and all other canstru~ta.on ~ctivities aha11 be conducted in suc:h a manner so as to minimize th~ posai- bility oi an}~ silt originating frr.n this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm wat°r originating fram or flow- ing through thls project. (13) That the alignment and terminal point of storm drains shown on this tentative traat map ~shall not be considered Final~ These drains shall be subj~ct to grecise design considerations and approval of the City Engineer. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY. PLANNING COMMISSION, ,January 21, 1974 74~-32 ~NVIRUN'M}~~NTAL IMPACT •- CONTINLJEA PUBL~C EIEAI'tING. ANAF~EIM HILL•S~ zNC./TEXACQ REPORT NO. 1~9 VENTIJRES, INC•, 3~0 Anr~heim t~i11s Road, Anaheim, Ca. ~ - 92807, nwndr~l 11M~;RICAN HOU3ING GCJILn-JaOS ANGELES, 409 COI~DI'PIANAL~ U::E Wea~erly Placu, No. 105, Newport IIeach, CA. 92660, Agant.. PERMIT N0. 1436 Property desaribed as: An irreqular.ly-shaped parcel af ~ land ~onaiating of. ~pproximately 29 acraa, havinc~ frant-~ T~NTATIV~ MAP Oi~ ageR of approximately 444 fec~t on tho north ~ide and 937 TRACT NOS . 8455 fec:t an tho south si.r~e aP Canyon R.im R~ad, havinq A AND 8456 maxfmtun depth af approximatsly 889 teat, anc~ being -" located apti~roxima~ely 1200 fee~ eaet o~ the centc~rlia~e of Nohl Ra~lch Road. Praperty presently c'lassified R-A, AGRIG'UI,'1'UFAI~, ZONE . REQU~STED CONDITIONAL 11SE: ESTAPLISH A 116~UNiT, oNE AND ~ao-STORY PLANNED RESIDFNTTAL DEVELOPMENT, WAIVING (A) REQtJIftED LOT FRONTAGE, (A) MINTMUM BUILDING SITE AREA, (C) MINIMUM BUx~DING SITE WIDTH, (D) MINIMUM DISTANCE B~TW~EN BUILDIN~S~ (E) MINIMUM YARU 11ND BUILDING SETBArK, (F) RF;QUIF2~~ 6-FOUT MASONRY WALL ABUTTING R-A ZONE, AIVD (G) MAX7.MUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITFIIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE-I'AI~IJ~Y RESii..^'.:JTIAL ZONE BOUNDARX. TENTATIVE TRACT R~QUESTS: D~~IELOPER.: AMERICAN HOUSING GUIT~D, 409 Weaterly P.lace, No. 105, Newport Bea~h, Ca. 92660. ENGINEER: WIL~DAN ENGINEERING ASSUCIATES~ 125 South Claudina Street, Anahelm, Ca. 92805. Subject tracts are proposed for subdivision as followa: Tract No. 8455 ~ 15.6 acr~s - 69 R-2 zoned lots; Tract No. 8456 - 13.1 acres - 47 R-2 zone~ lats. Si~bject petitions were continued from the meetings of November 26 and December 27, 1~73 ancl January 7, 1974, at the request of the p~titioner, in order to prepare and submit revised plans. Mr~ Roger Wilson, repr.esenting the Orange Unifi~d School District, and Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, President of the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Aasociatioa, Inc., indicated their presence in oppo~ition to subject peti.tion~ and waived the full ::eading of the Staff Report to the Commis~ion dated Jax~uary 21, 197~5. Said Staff Report is referzed to as if set forth in full in tY,e minutes. Mr. John Millick appeared before the Commission in behalf of Arlaheim Hills, Inc. and stated following his presentation he wou~d maY.e himsplf available as long as necessary to respon3 to any questi~ns and provide requested ir-formation; that the proposed pr~ject was for 116 units~ a reductiUn of 84 units f.rom the origi.nal proposal; that tihe developer was proposing the same type of units, fl~or plana and eievati~ns that were incorporated in "The Gallery'', an existing projecti; that concerniny the impact or~ the schools in the area, a poll had beeri taken of the first 16 buyers and it was determined there w~uld be 15.75 students gene.rated in the project; that they had also determined that the ave.rage age of the head of tlie household would be 49 and ~he average income ~aould be $31,Q00 per year. Mr. Bob liezm~lhalch, representing American Housix-g Guild, appeared before tt-e Commission and stated that the Guild was a privately-held, decentralized company; thar the Guild had seven divisions in nine different states, two divisidns being in the Southern Calif.ornia area; that the Guild had constructed ar. average of 100G iinits a year over the past n9.r~e years t that the~.r emphar~ =s would be toward a certain huyer profile as the proposed pro;ect was aopl:isti- cated, luxurious tawnhouses= that Anaheim Hills was a planned communi.ty and offer~d t.he developer the abi].ity to develop to the maximum= that in their extensive marketing research in Urange County, they determined that q~iality housing in the high-pr~.ce range was beat suited for Anaheim Hi11s and the great-- est o~portunity exi~ted in that area; and that the proposed preject had seven basic building heights and seven flaor pl~ns, or a combination of 38 plaris with the different exteriors, and front and reai ~~evations. Mr. Hezmalhalc.h des- cribed the untta fn detail and ctated there would be stagger~d roof ~nd building profileai that the buildings would be set back to providc adequate eirculation s ^~ • MINUTF.S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 21, 1974 74-33 ENVIRONMENZ'AL IM•PACT RCPOi.: N0. 108, CONDITIONAL USE !'~RN1IT N0. 1436, AND TENTATIVE M.4P OL TRACT N~ 8455 AND 8456 (Cnntinued) __ for the use oE the gar.ageaj that all ofi tkie garag~ae were pra~~sed to lzave ol~atric door openor~~ that tlte price range ~f the units wou1G be from $42- 50,000; the~t they hdd m~de many concessiana to the proje~at and hnd added considerable gzeen Aret~a Eor ~he amenity packager ~hut the proposed project would bri ng their total developmc~nt to 35U uni,te and wou].c7 r.oncluda thair. development in the Anahoim tiills. Mr. ltoger Wilson, representir~q the ~rar~ge Unified School District, appeAred Lefore the Commiss~lon ar.d read a prepaxed letter dated Jenuary 18, 1974, frnm the School District tn oppoaition to ~nvironmental Impact Raport No. 108 and Ten~ativ~ Tract Nos. 8455 and 8456. :ai.d l.etter indicated there were no srhools near the tracts and the schoole in the ~xiati~ng a~tQndance area were already either beyond capaaity or rapidly approachi.ng capacity; tnat the SchooZ District ht~ci no available resources to purchase a.r,hool sites or. build new achoolsf tha~ the next achool b~nd election was sc:hedule~i for March '.5, 1974; that the planning and constructi.on of new achools r.equired from 10 to 24 montha followtng availabi.lity of funds; and that for those xeasons th+e Scltool Distri.ct opposed approva.l of the pro ject until resourcer~ far r~ew scho~l facilities became available. Said lEtter was receiv~:d foz• filing purposes. Conaiderable discu~eion pursued regarding i:he lack ~f schuol facilities in subject area attd Commi3sioner Herbst ri~t~d that the: Sr.haol District was awar~ of the prc+blEm in the Canyon appr.oximately three yaars ago as tlie planning ~ad been an on-goi.ng process; that the taxes had been funneled into the 5~hoo1 District over the y~ars and no~:hing had been done regard~ng the school situa- tion. Commisr~ioner Herbst further noted 1:hat the City crf Anaheim did not have an absolute type of control for their activities, i:~ com~arisan; thAt si.nce the matter was brough~ to the attention of the 5chool District, samet.hing should have been done about the situation; that long-range planning of ~.he School District was vital and the District was awar.e that the population was incxeasing in that area. Mrs. Maxy Dinndorf, repr~senting the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association, Inc., appeared before th~~ Commisaion in opposition to sut~ject petitions and pointed out that her only obje~~tion was related to the planned ur-it deve~opment being located in the subject. areaj that people were getting tired of living on postage stamp lats; that she c~uestioned iF the condominitims xnigtet be on their way ~ut of vogue, as v~ri~ua media indicated that only 2a$ of those who had lived in this type of development wou].d ever return to that life atyle; and that perhaps some single-family develop;nents were needed in the area. Comanissioner Seymour noted that a national survey had been ~onducted of resi- dents of this type development and the meaningful infarmation obtai.ned was that a p7.anned unit developed could be good and acceptalale as long as the density w~s kept down; that the City's s andards were 10 units per acre and the survey indiaated the desirability dropped off rapidly for clevelopments with density over 10 txnits per acre. Commissioner Seymour noted if the pro- posed development was qoing to sell at $50,000, an R-1 dPVelopment ox~ similar property with 3-1/2 units per acre would have a price tag c,f. a~proximately $65,000 and up. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEU. Upan inquiry of Commisaioner Kiz~g, Mr. Millick a~3vised the waivers being re- que~tecl w~re neceasary aince there was no specific arciinance for development of condom_niums and further, L•hat due to the dr.dstic topography change, th~y were requesting waiver oP the walls that otherwise would b~ redundant. Upon inquiry of Chairman Gauer, ~Conunisaioner Seymour stated regarding a similar project, the Deputy City Attorney had made it clear that the school problem wras not in the purview of the P~anning Cnmmission; that perhapa the 5chool ~7istrict had not planned as it sh~uld have, but to the best of the Commi.ss3on's knowledge, ~.he School Distri.ct had been kept in~ormed. Hlowever, in his opinion, with the rapid increas~s in deveZopment, ~he Planning Commisslon was somewlnat causing the problem and although the School District was not in the purviaw of the Planning Commiseion, he would like to recommend that the letter presented by Mr. Wilson be pro~vide~ to the City Council. \.~l ~ ~ MINUTES, CTTX PLANNING COMMISSION, Janut-ry ~1, 1.974 74-34 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT R~PORT N0. 108, CONDITIONAL USE k'~RMZT N0. 1436, aIVD TENTATIVE MAF OF TRACT NOS. 8~455 AND d456 (Continudd) Commies~oner Seymour ofEereB a motic~n, e~condod k~y Commi~saionear Nerbet, anc~ MOTION CARlt~ED (Commiaeianer Farano baing abseil~) that the Pinnning Commiesion ix~ connection with tha filing of Environ~menta]. Impnct Repart No. ~.08, finde and determines thdt the EIR R~view Committee c9ek~rminec~ that the repart ia adequate ~e an informntive document e~nd followa the City's ~stabliaheCi guide- linee and that tk~ere would bA n~ signi.ficant adverao en~ironmeritr~l imprctr and, ther~foxa, the Plr~nning Commi~si.on reaommends ta the Ctt,y Counci'1 ~kiat said repox~t ba ado~tad aa the Cauncfl's ~nvironmental ImpacL• Sta.tame~r.t. C~mmisaioner Seymour offered Reaolution No. PC74-12 and moved for ita paseage and adoption to grant Petiition £or Cond~tional Us~ Permit No. ~.43b, and g~ant- ing Waivers a, b, e.nd c on the ba~is that simil.~r waivers had been prevfously approved by the C~mmisaton to Allow ~`velopmetit of the ~mall lot cancept of townhouae projea~ei granting Waivera d and ~ on the basis that tihe requeat was minimal and allowed for more creativa ei~ke planx~ing ap ill,xstrated on the plan of the ~~.t~ and the top~graphy of the lai,dt granting Wai.vE~r f on the baei.s that the zequiremen~ :.~z~ma~ly to eeparate the two zonea wqs applicabl~ to flat land reyuir~mentg, howevPr, becauso of the topagraphy ar.~d axhibits as submitted by the getitioner, said wa~.l would not bs effQCtive in this separation; and granting Waiver g on the basie that~ the aingle-f~~mily zonP would be at a lower elovation than tha proposed d6velopment as illustrated on the plan of tlie ~ite and the topoc.raphy of the land, howEVer, granti.ng of this waiver Ahould not eatabliah a precedent for similar waivers unless substan- tiating eviden~e had been presented to justify waiver oP the height limitation; and subject to conditians. (See Resolution Book) On roll call '~he ioregaing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, King, Seymour, Gauer. I~OES: COMMISS~ONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIOIVERS : Farano. Commissioner Seymcur offered a motion, sec~nded by Commissioner f:erbst and MOZ'ION CARRIED (Commissi~ner Farano baing a.bsent) to approve Tentativ~ Map of Tract Nc~. 8455, subject to the follow~.ncs conditions: (1) That the approval of ~entative Map of Tract No. a455 is granted subject to th~ completion of Reclassification No. 77.-72-44 and Conditional Use Permit No. 14:i6. (2) That shou].d tYxis subdivisi.on be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivisi.on thereof ~thal]. be submit~ec~ in tenta- tive form for appraval. (3) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. (4) That a.final trac~ map of subject property shall be aubmitted to and approved by the City Council aiid then be record~ed in the office of the Orange County Recorder. (5) That the aovenants, conditions, and restrictians shall be sub- mitted to and approved by the City Attoxney's Office priAr to Gity Council approval of the final ta~act m~p, and, further, that the approved cavenants, condition3, and restrictions shall be recoxded concurrently with the final tract map. (6) That p~ior to filing the final tract map, the applicant sha11 sabmit ta the City A.ttnrney for approval or denial a complete s,ynopsis of th~ proposed functioning of the oper~ting corporation, including but not limited to the articlss of 3ncorQorat•lon bylaws, propased methoda of manac~ement, bonding to insure maintenance of c~mmon p~ogezty and buildinga, and aucka otr4er infc+rmation as the City Attorney may desire to pr.ot~+ct the City, its citi~ens, and the purchase.r.3 af the project.. ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CJTY PLANNING COMMISStqN, :Tanu~tXy 21, 1.974 74-35 ENVIRqNI~NTAL JMPACT RRPORT N0. 108, CONDTx~ONAL USF PERMTT N0. 14a6, AIVD TENTATIVE MAP O~' TRACT NOS. 8455 ANU 845~ Continued) __ (7) That streot n~mes shal]. be npproved by th~ City of Anahe~im prior to a~pr.ov~l of a final tract map. ( 8) That the owner (ei of sub ject properi:y shall, pay ~a the City of Anahaim the appropri.ate park and recr.eation i.n-lieu =dee na determined to k~e d~pxopri.ata by the City Counailo sa:ift feea to be paid at the time the buildi.ng permit i~ ixsued. (9) That drainaqe of aaid pr.operty shall bs ~'.1Apoaed of in a mannQr Satiafar.tory to the City Engin~er. IF, i.n tha prepmration ~~f tho site, sufti.cient grading is r.equirE~d ~ko necesditat~a a gra~ding permit, no work on gr+~ding wil]. be pennitted betw~aen Octobar 15th anr~ Apri]. 15th iinleas all requir.ed off-site drr.inage facilitioe hav~ been inatalled an~ ar.e operative. Positive aseurance ahall be provided the City that such drain.age facilitigs will be ce^~- pleted prior to October 15t1z. NACessary right-of-way for aff-site drainage far,ilities ahall be ded~.aated tc thd City, or t:a City Council shall have initiated condmm~atior. pxoceedl.ngs therefor (the costs of whiah shall be borne by the developer) prior to commencement of grading ope.r~tionr~. Tho raquired drainAge facili- ties ahall. be of a size and type s»f£i.;ient to carry runaff watera originating from higher ~rop~rties through said property ~o ulti- mate aisposal as approved by the Cit~ Engineer. Said drainege facilities shall be the first item of constructiax~ and ahall be compl.eted ztnd be functional throughout the L•ract and Erom the downstream bc~undary of the propPrty to the ultima~e paint of dis- posal prior to the issuance of any final buildin,q inspections or occupamcy pe~~~nits. Drainage district reimbursement agreemc~nt~ may be made available to the developera of sald pxoperty upon their requeat~ (10) That grading, excavation, and all other construc~cion activitiea shall be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possi- bility of any silt or.iginating from this project being carried into th~ Santa A,na River by storm watex• originating from or flowing through this pr.ojeat. (11) That the private streets shall bE designed in accordance wi~h the City af Anaheim's p~ivate street standards. (12) That fire hydran ta sha11 be i.nstalled and ch~rged as required and determined to b~ necesfary by the Chief of the Fire Departmer.t priar to commencement of structural framing. Commissioner Seymour oEfered a motion, seconded by Commis~loner Harbst and MOTION CARRIED ~Commissioner Farano being absent) to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 8456, aubject to the followiz~g conditions: (1) `t'hat th~: approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8456 is qranted subject to ~he c,ompletion of Reclass~tication No. 7].-72~44 and Conciitional Use Permit No. 1435. (2) That should this subdivision be developed as more thaxi one sub~ division, each suUdivisian ;:hez•eof ahal:t be submitted in tenta- tive form for approval. (3) That all lots wi.thin thie tract shall be served by underground utilities. (4) That a final tract map of subject pro~erty shall be submitted tio and approvad hy the City Counc3l and then be record.ed in the office of the Orange County itecotdPr. ~ ~ ~ MINU'CES, CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, Janu3~,y 21, 1974 7a~36 ENVIP.~~~'~NTAI~ INIF~ACT ItEPORT N0. IOQ, CONDITIONAL USE PFRMIT N0. 143(i, AI~D TEN':ATIVE MAP OF' TRAC'I' NOS. 845S ANU 8456 (Continued) ______________._„ (5) That tho cc~venants, aonr~itions, and re~trictiosis ahell be sub- mitt~d to and a~,~prov~d by the City Att.orney'~ 4ffiae priar to City Coiincil approval uf the final tract map, ~nd, furth~r, ~hat the approved c~venants, conditi.ans, and restrictiona ahal7. be r~carded concurrently w.it~~ rh~ finA1 tract map. (6) That prior to filing ~he final tr.act map, the appltcant aha].1 aubmit to the City Afi~torney ~ar approval nr denial a c~mplete synopsis of the propnsed fux:ctioning of the operating corpord- tion, including but nat ~imited to the ~rticl~es of incorporat~on bylaws, propased methods af ntanagement, bonding to in~ure main- tenance of common pr.aperty end buildings, and such other infor- mation as the City Atfi.arnoy may desire to protect tha City, it.s citizens, ar~d the purchasera of th~ projeat. (7) That streei: names shall be approved by the Ci.ty o£ Anaheim prior to approval r~f: A final tract map. (8) That the owner(s) of subject property ahall pay to the Clty ~f Anaheim i:he appropriate paxk and recreation in-liei~ Pees as detprmined t~ be appropxiate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the buildir.g permit is issuec7. (9) That drainage of said p~•~perty ahall be ciispased of in a manner satis~actory to the City Fngine~:r. If, in the preparation of the site, suffiaient gx•a~ing is r~quired to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading will be permitted between October 15Ch and April 15th unlesa alZ required off-site drainage facilities have been inet•alled and aie op~rative. Posltive assuxance sha11 be provided the City that such drainage facilit~.~s wi11 bF com- pleted priar to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way For off-site drainage facilities shall be dedicatec3 to the City, or the City Cauncil shall have iriitiated condemnation procesdings therefor (the casts of which shall be borne by the rleveloper) prior to •commenc~ment oF grading op~ratians. The required drainage facili- ties shall be of a size and type sufficient ta carry r.»noff waters originating from ti~igher properties through said property to ulti- mate di.sposal as approved by L•he City Engineer. Said drainage facilities shall be the first item of construrtinn and shall be completed and be functional tY~rouqhout the tract and from the dawnstre~.m boundaxy of the pro~~erty to the ultimate point af dis- posal pri~r. to the issuance of any final building in~nections or occupancy perm:.ts. Drainage district reimbursement agreements may be macle ava~lable to th~ developers of said property upon ~heir request. (10) That gr~ding, excavation, and all other construction activities shall be r_onducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possi- bility of any silt originating from this project b~ing carried into the Santa Ana River by ~storm wa ter ~riqinating from or flowing through this pr.oject. (11) That the private stree~s shall be designed in acc:ordance with the City of Anaheim's private atreet standards. (12) That a blanke~ easement fer street and public ntilit,y purposen shall b~ granted to the City af Anaheim for possi~ble fu~ure streets to be extended to the adjacent property to the north (the extent of said blanket easement sha11 be as approved by the Cii:y Fagineer) , and a borid in an 3mour~t and ~orn; satisfactory to the City shall be poste~ to guarantee the installation o£ said street imprnvements. When the propertl over whic' said blanket Aasement ex*.er.ds is devoloped, precise street alignments shall be determinec~ and the portions of the bl.anket eas~~nent not re- quired for the gtreets aha11 be of no effect. ~ ~ ~ MIN;TJ'ES, CZTX PLANN'LNG C~3MMISSION, January 21, 1974 74-37 LNVIRONNlENTAL TN~ACT RFPORT N0. 1Q8, CONDITIONAI~ US~ PE~2MIT N0. 14;36, :1ND T~iVTATTVE MAP Ok' TRACT NOS .~1455 ANb 8456 (Continued) ,~ (13) That ~rior tc~ th~ approvul o~ TentAtive Map of Tract No. 8456, t}ie owner(e) ~f s~~bjoct proparty g all make an irrevoaable affer to dedic;ate an eaeement f~r. ri~ing and hiking trai~ pur- posas over that ~ortion of sub~ect property over which thd Four Cornexs Pi.pe I,inc~ C~mpany hae an aasem~nt fpr pipe lines ~nd inc.idental purp~ses upon th~ date oP approval of this ~Anta- tiva tract map. S~id offer to dtdic~te eh~1'1 be irrevocable for a period o~ twanty yeara and may be acceptod by the City of Anaheim at such time as it i.e c~eterminad that dc~velopment of ~uch faci.l~ties would be itt tli~ best intEraats of Cha Ci~ty of Aneheim. Saicl irrevocable offer to dediaate, ahdll bo recorddd coticurrently with the i'inal tract map. (14) That ~ire hydrants sh~ll be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by tha Chief of the Fire Depar*.- mor.t prlor to commencement of structural £raming. CONDx'rJON.AL USE - CONTINUED PUALIC HEARING. STATE INDiISTRI~S, 3383 East ~ERMIT N0. 14A2 Gage AvEnue, Huntington Park, Ca. 90255, Ownerj requ~atinq `" permisaion ~o ESTABLISH A PLANNEU LINIFTED INDUSTRIAL SERVICE CENTER ZNCLUDING A MOTEL, RESTAURAN~', ANA RETA:~Z SERV2CE SHOPS WITH WAIVERS OF (A) PERMITTED USES, (B) MINIMUM REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, ANA (C) TXPES OF SIGNS PF.RMITTEG on property deacribed as: An irreg~~larly-shaped parcel of land consisting ~f approximately 15 acres, having a frontar,z of approximately 50~ feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, havinv a max3mum depth of approximately 1020 feet, and being lacated approximatel,y 250 feet west of the centarlin~ of KraemEZ Boulevard. Prupexty presently classified COUNTY 100-M1-20,000, LIGH~ INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT (Re:sol.u-- tion oE In.tent to M-1, LtGHT 7NDUSTRIRL, ~ON~), Suaject petition was ccn~inued fr.om th.~ meEting of Decemher 27, 1973, for the submissi.on of revised plans. No one was present in op~osition. Although the Stafi Report was not read at the public hearing, it is referred and made a part of i:he minutes. Mr. Nick Hai, engineer for the property owr~er, appearvd before the Commiasian an3 indicated ~e was present ~to answ~r any questions concerning the aubject petition. THE PUBLIC HEARxNG WAS CLOSED. Upon inquiry of Commissioner. King, Mr. Hai indicr~ted the trash staraa~ aitua- tion had been sett?.ed, to his knowledge. Cummissa.oner Herbst ncted tha~ re~cail k~uainesses were designed primarily to serve the commercial corrununity and not the industrial c~mmuni~ky. Assiatant Zoning Super~risor Phillip Schwartze advised that the 3eneral retttil aoncept originally proposed had been almost eliminated but he wanted to point aut that the Planning Commission ~night want to review the uses beiny progosed as aemi-commercial uses at thc ~ubject lacation. Mr. Hai stated the proposed uses had been reviewed and compared with the Du::n ~roperties development on Ball Ftoad, at th~ suggestion of ~t~e Planning ~ommis- si~.~, and the prapQeed uses were in cor~pliance therewith. C~~imnissioner ~Ierbst reiterated that the purpoee of. the li.st which Wae requeeted we.a to provide a listinq of those commer^ial entities that would aervic~ the i~idu~tzial area and would not be retail outleta in an industrial area. N,r. Arthur Haskell, reprasenting ~h~ prope~rtx ov'nex, appc~axed beEore the Commis- ~~~an and ~ueationed whether the list was ~atiafactory to the Commis~ion. ~ ~ ~ MINiIT:,'S, CITY PI.I~NNIr:G COMMISSION, January 21, 1974 ~~-3~ CUN1~7.'1`ION11L USE P~;l~'NIT Nc~ • 1A42 (Continuo~) Cornmi:3~ionez Hecl~ar further. e~tatpd ho was re-ecnph~-~izing the 1i.at ~f e~gmi- c:ocnmercial usc~s so that t.e petiti.i.pner would understancl th+~ intent of tho C~mmiKaiun. Commi.sst~ • Seymoux cammantoci that tha coo~erstic~n of. tho ~e~ition~er hRd bcne~n apprec:i.; - and the Con~ni.asi.on wishcd to bo very c' _ar in it^ i.nt.~nt. Commi~sionc~r.• Seymour o~fered a motian, geconded by Com-nissi.oner. Hdrbat and MOTION ~ARR~ED (Commi.~~ioner Faru:~:~ being abaent) that the Plann~.ng Commiasian, in connection with A11 exemption declaration statun re~~iest, finds and detez- mines tha~. rhe prcpoeal would hav~ no si.yr~ifi.c~~nt ~nvironmon*.a?. impcsct And, th~refore, recommen...3 to the Cit~.;~ Caunc~3. thnic no Environmontal :[mpact ;tatQ- ment is i~ecessary. Commis~icsner Herbst offQred Resalutian No. PC74-13 and moved far its pae~sage and adoption to grant Petiti.on f~r Cc.nditional Uae Permit No. 1~142 ~n part, ai; ^e the ~c~titioner had wi.thdrawn Wai.vers a and b, and that Waiver c is grhnted on th~ basis thai~ the ~~eti.txoner demanstrated a hard~hip wottld be created if said waiver was nr~t qrantQd due to the unique pzoposalf and auk~joct to conditians. (See Resolution 13ook) r~~~ L•oll call the foreg~inq resolution was passed by the follo~ainq vote: AYES: CAMMZSSIONERS; Iierbst, Ki.ng, ymour, Gutier. NOES ; CUMDIISSTUNERS s Nane . 11B5EP~Tt COMMISSIONERS: Farana. RECLAS~IFICATIUN - CONTINUED PUBLIC H~AF.IN~. LERGY AND S~~SAN I~EITMAN, 2890f1 NO. 73-74-2~ Ironwood, Sunnymead, Ca. 9238ti, Owx-ers= ?.I~EX I~EI~LEHUMEUR OR HENRY M. ROBERTS, JR., 9461 Grindlay, Su.ite 20G, VARIANCE N0. 256H Cypress, Ca. 90630, Agent. Property ciescribed as: A rectangularly-~'hapFd parcel of land consisting of approxi- mately 1.7 acres, having a frontage of approximately 264 feet on the north side of Ball F.oad, having a m~xin~um depth of approximately 277 feFt, and being loc3ted appro~cimately 40G feet east cf the cent~rli.ne of W~s~ern Avenue. Proper.ty pregently classified R-A, AGRICULTUFAL, ZONE. REQUEST~D CLASSIFICATIU~1: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTZAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VAi.~ANCE: WAIVER OP' (A) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHTN 150 FE~T OF STNGI,E-FAMILY RESTDFNZ'IAL ZONE, (B) MINIMUM YARDS ANU BC" DING S~:'BACK, (C) MINIMUM DISTl.NC~ BETWE~N I~UILCINGS, (D) MINIMUM WIDTH OF PEDESTRI~'~N ACCESSWAY, (F) MINIMUM ~Fr'-STREET PARKIP~G SPACEG, AI3D (F) WALLS ADJACENT TO F-A AND SINGL~-FAM7I,Y ZArTE TO ESTl#BLISH A 50-UNIT APARTMENT COMPL~X. Subject petitions ~uere co~-t:' ~ue~? frnm the Deaember 10, 1973 meeting, in order ~'or tY~~ petitioner to submi~ revised plans. Four persons indicated their presence in opposition to subject petitions. A::sistant Zoning Supervisnr Phillip Scnwar.tze re~a the Sta£f Report to the Commi~sicn da'ced January 21, 1974, and said S taff R~-~ort is re£erred ta as if set forth i.n full in the m~ nutes. Mr. Henry Robexts, representing the petitioner, appear~d before the Cc~mma.ssion and stated regardirig the request f~~ waiver of the 150-foot se~back, oiily two units of the development would extend into that area and that no windows wc.uld be vi.~wing £rom the sub;ect units onto thp fi-1 propertX to the north; that the plans clearly indicated that the family rooms were open ~nd not intended to be used aa bedrooms, ana this determination w...ld affe~.t the required amount o~ parking apace; that, with regard to r.he rear wall, the ~roperty owners would like an 6-foot wall in additiun ~o the enclosed carport$, howevPr, they were wiI].ing to do whatever the Plannincr Com,n:ssio;i saw f~.t to recommend; and that h~ was appreciative of the ~.ime th•a people in the area had taken to meet zcgmrding r1-~a propr~sa~. ~ • M~NUTES~ CITY PLANNIN~ COMMI8~I~Nr January 21, 1.974 74-39 RECLA5StF'rCATIGN NO. 73-74-29 ANU VARIANC~ N0. 25G8 (Cont3.nueci) Mx. 12on Wiles, 3156 Glon Holly, Anahc~i.m, appo&r~ . ksefore the Coutm.'_ea~an and ~tated he repreE.. ~tAd three per.sons wh~~ li.ved on Glon Hol].y Strc~et ~nd him- self, ~u '~:h,~r. hc had a di~£erence of opinian regc~rciinq thc~ 8-foot wallt th~*. he had contAClad the c:ity Enginoer~ng Divi.sion who i.ndicated ~, ei.mtlar. wall ht-d baen cori~~ructed in the City pravi.oaoly and L.~er~~ ~hould not be a prc~b~emt that he w~nt.ad thc~ 8-foot wall ta continue wherever i.t would end un tlie aub- ~ect prope~rty to tl~a end of the abut.ting ~ropertiee rather than ~eaving an open aroa wl~ere the wa~ll w~~uld norm~lly end~ thdt if thi.s condition was aqree- able, then the 150-Eoot sat~,back waiver would, be Qermiasi.k~lo to them. Dlr. Al. Seehusen, 3'l07 8a11 Rodd, Anahein, appQarECi before the C~:~iJnisai.on and inquirad if the proporty directly pa~L• of the aub~i~at proper~y wou.lcl hav~ a block wull inet~ad of' the wire fence. Mr. Hei-r.y Roberte stipulated there would be an K-foot block wall along th~ baak r~ide of the ~araperty. t4ra. Joyce Okura, 3125 West Ball Roa.d, Anahein, aFpeared before the Commisaion in u~position to subject petitions and stated she wa~e ~pQosed to the zAne chanye and vari~n.ce f.or very aalid reasonst that sh~ and the a~her residen~ts in the ar~a were not desirnus af apartmentsf that he~ home wauld not bo the ~ame if thts development war~ constru~ted; that she w~as asking foz a cantinuance of the fine quality of li.ving she had enjoyed over ::he ye~ra~ that West Anaheim was overdevel~ped w;th apartmentaj t11at in ccmp~riaon to East AnahQim, there w~re r~o greenbelts, golf courm~s or bike trails in West Anaheim= that the devel- oper Yiad a~temptea to comply with thE Building Code, although there was no guarantee af qualityt and that ehe would encouxac~s fu~.1 compliance with thp Municipal Code and denlal of tho zone ahanqe being requ~ested. Mr. Dave Okura, 3125 West Ball Road~ Anaheim, app~azed bef~~re the C'ommissi.on in opposition to aubject petitiona and qvestipned if the developers were re- quire.d to give cost figures to the Ci.ty with their petitions; that since the developer af the proposed pr~ject had reduced the project by 25 units, he was concerned about the quality, as the prnperty was located in close proximity to the City af Stantoi~ and he dia not wi~h to have th~ quality of apartm~nt allowed in the City of Stanton in his area; that he would al.so like ta inquire how much money the develo~.~er ~ras investing in landscaping for the t~roposed project. in rebutta~., bir. Henry Roberts stated ~the approximate budget for the ~~roj~ct landa~::~ing wa~ $18,500; that they had not reduced the project by 25 uaits, ruc by only 5 units, and sai-'. reduction was very margina~. in relationship to the success aL the project. THE PUBLIC: HEARING WAS CLOSED. In repl~ to questioning by Commissioner Ririg, Mr. Henz•y Hoberts further stated the approximate cost of the project, excluding real estate, was 5780,000; and that they intended to own the project and wanted it to be a good one. Commissxoner Herbst noted more space should be ~~lotted to serve a~ a buffer to the adjoining R--1 prApertiest that he would rather see the 20-foot land- scape stri.p and tree~s that there were 8-foet w~lls ~lbutti,~? R-1 properties in the City and after talkxng to those residents and viewing their walls, h~ woiild never vote for anothPr 8-foot wall; that, in his opinion, the devel~pers were responsible to protect the restdents who were already there; and that kh e waivers rEquested were not necessary. Commissioner Sey:nour noted that he had never experienced one situation wheY~ the maximum building height caithin 150 feet of a air~gle-family residence zo~ie was waived; ~?~at in an R-A Zone or in certain topographic situations, thi:~ was a teGhi~icalit,y, however, other than tihat it had never been waived; that regarding bufferinq, wa].ls eliminated the view or intrusion of the vi.ew and at the same time compounded the prablem ny creati~~~ athers; that to his reco~lec*~on two projects in Anaheim had 10-frot wa~ls abut=ing R-? prapErties and the enviror-mant was totally undesirable as it was dark, and that the 20- fo~t buffer zone would provide ventilationt that evidentl.y the 2q-faat land- sca~Ed buffex atrips had been satiafactury in tha City and were of be:nefit to ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PL,ANNING COMMLSSZON, J~n~iary 21, 197A 7~{~40 ItECLAS3IFIr~TION N0. 73-74-29 ~1ND VAhIAN~ . C~E .N~.~256_8 (Con~inued) Lhe abu~ting propertleR, ae woll e.s to the ^ cupAnte of the ap~rtmentot ~1~d~ although he w~s a,ympathetic to t;he ec~~:~o~i~e af the project, tr~c3 20-faot lr~nd- sceped area wae necasaary, and that r~ h~ve a varianae, th~ petit~.oner wnutd hava to d9mc~n~trate a h~rdship. (See Planning Commiasia~~ rninutee oE Decembex 10, 1973, for the Planning Commission'e action regn°ding tho Environmental Impact Exemptioi~ Decldxation StdtllA RA~UQ~t. ) Commissioner Seymour of~ered a mo•tion to c~eny subject Petition for Variancc~ No. 2568 baFed on the foregoing findinga of t.he l~lanning Commission. Zonj.ng Supesrvisor Chariea Robert.e inquirod if the P'lanning Cammiss~.on would deem it appropriatP ~o r.aqu~at that the pe~itionEr revi.se~ Yiis plane rdth~ar thax~ have a denial at thir~ time. Commisaioner Seymour stated th~ zoni.ng wa, appropriate for the property, how- ever, the~ xequeste~ waivars and setti.nq asidE the Planning Commission polic}~ regarding a 20Wfoot landacaped buffer area were no~ appropriate= anc~ thut the parking wuiver was a technicality and the developer wou].d bb entitled to that. He inquired if ~hd.re was a poasibi.lity that the developer could .redesign the praject. Mr. Henxy Roberts otated aimilar waivers had. been granted in the area with regard to the buffer zone between apartn,c:nts ancl R-~ ~~roperties ; that if the Planning Commission granted a continuanca, they wou~ either revise the ~~lans or de~id~ not to h>>ild the project if they could not be proud of it. Thereupon, Commissioner Seymour. withdrew his m~tion to deny Petition for Variance No. 25G8 and offere~l a new motian, aeconded by Commissioner King, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissi.~nex Farana being absent) to rfopen the pub~ic hearing and continue consideration of Petition for VariancE. No. 2568 to the meeting of Februar~~ 4, 1974. Commissicner. Seymour directed 5taff t~ research the r.ecord$ ta verify whether tlle waivers referred to by Mr. Henry Roberts had bsen granted in the area. CONDITIONAL USE - G~NTINUF.p PUBLIC HEARIK ~. W. R. ANA PATRI~IA MILT~R, c/o PERMIT NO. 1166 H. R. F' unkat, Attorney at I~aw, BC~8 WeatErn, Glendale, Ca. 31201, Owr~er; r.equesting pPrmission for BUS STORAGE AND REI'ATR FAC~LITiES AND THE INCIDENTAI, RENTAL Or' AUTO- MOBILES on property descriLed as: A reGtanguiarly-shaped parcel of land con-- si.sting of approximately .40 acre, having a frontage of approximately 72 feet on the south side of Katella Way, having a ma.ximum depth oP approximately 240 feet, and being located ~ppraximately 250 feet we~t of the centerline of Mountain View Avenue, and further described as 304 ~ast Katella Way. Prcperty .~esently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERGIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of January 7, 1974, in or3er fox the petit~oner t~ be ~resent. No one appeared in opgosition to sui~ject petition. Although the Staff Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred ~o an3 made a part of the minutea. Assistant Zoning Supervisa~ Phillip Schwartze noted for ti~e Commissio~i that the petitioner was not pres~nt. Com-~issioner Ki^q stated he would liko '.; :^ve ahead with ti. e consideration of subje~t pe~itior, j that he had c:hecked the property and found it to b~ "spic an~d span" ; tha*. minox repairs were being conflucted on the subject premises; tha~ the bu~es were 1Q0 feet back from the propert5~ linef and that the only way the work on the premises could be riewec~ was by standing in the driveway af gubject property. ~ ~ MINUT~S, CIZ'X PI.d1NNTNG GOMMIS~ION, ~+~nuary 21, 1974 74-41 CONDI'r~ONAL USE P~RMIT NO:11FE ((:ontinu~ed) TH~ PUBLTC HEARTNG WAS CLGSED. Commissioner Herbet offered a motion, eeconded by Commis~tnner Sa~+mour and DiOT~ON CARRIED (Commissi.oner Fareno b6i.ng absent) that the Planninq Commin~inn, in connaati.~n with an exempti~n declai•ation etatus requnet, fir.c3e end detnr~ minas thut t~~d proposal would have no significant environmeiiLal i.mpact And, ther~efare, recommends ta t.he City Council that no Envi.ronment~l Iinpa-~t Stat~- ment is necessary. CommisNi.onor Herb~t offerad Rasolutian No. PC74-14 nnd mr~ved fa r its paesage+ and adopti~n tr~ grant Petition for Conditional Uso Pormit No. ;1166 ba~ed on tho for~going findings of tho Planning Commiaeian; ~ubject t~ the cnndition tl~aC tho uae Ahoula be g.ra~nted for a peri~d af. one yeax, eub ject t~ review arid s~ubseqaen~ consider~tion for ~+xtenaion by the Pl~nning Cammiseion and/or City Cauncil upon request by the petitioner, since a condi~ional use per.mit runa with the land and althouyh the propo8ed uee was preseni:ly aompatible with the surrounding uaes, it ma~ n~t b~ at a futur.e timej and subjec~ to conditions. (Seo 12eso:.ution B~~k) On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vc,te: AYES: COMNIISSIUNERS: Herbst~ King, Seymour, Gt~uer. NOES : COMMISSIONERS : None. . ABSENT: GOMMISSIONER: : Farano. VARIANCE N0. 2573 - PUBL'TC HEARING. UONALD F. LEWIS, 2057 West Romnexa Drive, -' - Anttheim, Ca. 92801, Own~r; "aOWDIE" BGWllEN, Century 21 Real ~state, 2123 ~~at Ball. Road, An<i'~eim, Ca. 92805, Agentt requesting WAtVER UF (A) MINIMUM REQUIREB FRONT YAHD SET~i~CK, (B) MINIMUM REQTJIRED SIDE YARD SF.TBACK, AIdD (C) MAXIMUM LOT COVGRAGE TO FERMZT AN EXISTING CARPO~T AND PA'rI0 COVER ori property de~cribed as : A rectanqu:Larly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately .16 acre, having a frontage ~f approximately 70 feet on the north side oE Ro~~ineya D.rive, having a maximum depth of approximatel~y 101 f~e~, an~ being located approximat~:ly 97 fest west of the centerlinQ of H~lly Street, and f~xrther desaribed as 20 57 Weat Romneya Drive. Property preRently classified R-1~ ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. Mr. Craig 3olnboski indi.cated his presence in opposition to subject petitian and waived fu11 reaaing of the ~taff Report to the Commission date~ January 21, 1974. Sai.c.l Staff Report is referrec~ to as if aet forth i.n full in tr.e ininutes. Mr. Donald Lewis, the property ~wner, appeared before the Commission and stated the carport haci beer- removed from the subject property and the patio blended with the construct.ion af the home; that there was an overhang on the patio with a 4-foot wa 11 in ~the f.ront of ~.he home; that the structures did not intrude ~n the adjoining properties and were constructed by the original owner and builder; that subject property was prssently in escrow a.nd the new owner was doing ~oxne work to bring the improvements up to Gode requirementa; that tY~sre was a wa.ll approximately 10 feet high l.~cated approximately 4 inches from the westPr].y property line which originai `_y ser.•~ed ~~ a support for the aarport; and th~ th~ requestipd variance was to allo~a the wall and t?:e patio co~~~r to remain. Upon inquiry of Ccmmissioner Herbst, Mr. Lewis stated the existing garaqe was being used as a garage. Mr. Craig Holc'~oski, 2063 West Romneya Drive, Anaheim, appeared bef.ore the Commission ~_n oppositon to subject petition and sta~ed he own~d the property next door c~ the subject property; that he was distrossed with the brick or cinderblock column that was situatefl very close to the er.iRting fence struck.ure; that the column overshadowed ancf cut off the light and air to his ba.;k yard; that the column did not seem to serve a purpose and was unsightly; that the r.eighbor on the other side of the subject property was in agreement regarding his statement~ in this matterj and that they wauld l:.ke to have the block wall or column remQVed. THE 'PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLO~ED. ~ ~ M1NUZ'ES, CIxX PLANNING COMMISSTON, Jr~nuary 21, 1974 74~42 VARIANCE N0. 2573 (Cantinued) Upan inquiry og Commisaioner Saymour, Mr. Lewi~~ atated remaval of the 10-faot hi5h calumn would just i.nvolve phyaical labor; that he would talk with the new property vwner concorning lc~we.rinq tha wal.l to 6 feet in heiqht to satiefy the B-ailding c:ode. Aesistant 2oning Supervisnr Phillip SGhwartze noted for tl1c~ Commisai~n that by the e~rlidr removal c~f the carpoxt roo.f, Waiver c wa~+ no longer required. c:ommiesioner Ktng st.~.ted regardiny ~ho patio, that it was fe,nced by a 4-foot wall anc~, in hie opinion, would n~t harm the neiqhbor~ ~t all. Mr. LQwis Rtated the patio had been Eenr.Hd £or approximately ten ye~ra. Fol.lowing ad~?:. ional comment by Mr. Ho~oboski regardi.ng the lioight ~f the side yard fence, Commisaioner Herbat etar.eci the City aould not ask the pr~perty ownar t,o remove a 6-foot wallj however, it would be to the petitioner's advan- tage to l~wer the wall to the 6-foot requirement. Commisaioner Seymour. of.fercd a mation, aeconded by Commissioner H~rY,st, and MO'PION CARRIED (Commissioner Farano b~inq absPnt) that the planning Commission, in connection with an Pxemption decl.aration status requeat, finda and deter- minos thatc the pro~csal would have no significant environmontal impact and, therafare, rECOmmends to the Ci.ty Gouncil that no Environmental Impact State- ment ia noaessary. C~-nmissioner Herbst offered Reaolution No. PC74-15 and m~ved for ita passage ~zd adopti~n t~ grant Variance No. 2573, xn part, granting Waiver "a" on t.he }~sie that the pe~itioner demonstrate,d a hardship would be created since the existing aemi-enc].osecl patio wae conatruc`ed approximately ten year:~ ago and t2ie request was determined to be minimal= that Waiver "b" is denied on the baeis that the petitioner did not prove a hardship would be created if said wa~ver was IlOti grantedi and thz~t Waiver "c" is denied on the basis tha~ tlie petitioner nas remo~~ed the garage carp~rt and the waiver is nc longer n~cessary; and subject to conditi~..is. (See Resolution BoAk) On roll call tYie foregoing resolut.ion was passed by the fellowing vote: AYES: COMN,ISSIONERS: Herbst, K3.ng, Seymour, Gauer. NOES: COMMIS~IONEP.S: None. ABSENT: COMMISS70NERS: Farano. V~RIANCE NA. 2575 - PUBLIC HEARING. JAME:S F. OUSTERHOUT AND PHILIPE E. D~LGAD~, ' F. O. Box 1].82, Orange, Ca. 92667, Owners; DON J. CARSON AND EL DEAN WILSON, 4332 East La Palma A~~enue, Anaheim, Ca. 92906, Agents; requesting WAIVER OF PERMTTT~D USES IN AN M-1 ZONE TO PERMIT mHE REPLACEMENT AND INSTALLATION OF AUTOMOBILE VINYL TOPS AND pROTECTIVE SIDF. MOULDINGS on p~~operty desr.ribed as: ~n irregularly-shaped parcel of land con~ aisting uf approximately 1.52 acres, having a frantage of approximately 120 f~et on the ~out.h side af Howell Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 577 feet, anu being ].ocated approximately 220 £eet east of the centerline of 8tate College Boulevard, an~ further described as 2020-D How~'~ Avenue. Prop- erty pr~aently classified M-l, LIGHT INDt7STRIAL, ZONE. It w~s noted that the petit~~.oner was not present and, ther.eu~an, Commissianer Seymoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTTON CARRIEn (Co~nissioner Farano beinq absent) to continue public hearing and cons:tderation of Petition for Variance No. 2575 to the ;neeting of Febru~ry ~3, 1974, in order Eor the pet~.ioner to ~e present. Later on in the meeting, the petitianer indicateG his presence and requpsted that Petition for Variance No. 2575 be heard. Thereupon, .:ommissioner Seymnur withdr.ew his motion ai~d Commissioner King wi~hdrew his second continuing said public hearing to the February 4, 1974 Planning Commisr~ion meeting; and the ~lazini.ng Commission generall.y con~urred that the motian be resci.nded. Na one appeared in oppositian ta subject petition. Al~hough the Staff Report was no~ read at the puhlic hearing, it is referred to and mnde a part of the minutes. ~ • MINUTES ~ CI'1'X PLAIVNING GOMMISSI:ON, Je~nuary 21, 1974 ~A-43 VARIpNCE N0. 2575 (C~ntinu~ed) Mr. Andy ~^~r~tc~, owiier o~ Advanced i.andmu Topa, appeaxed bePore the Cammis~ion c~nd atxpulAted that their bueineas wao a wholes~Rle opmration AnCi would not involve retail sales. Commissioner Seymour offerod a motion, eacondF~d by Comcnisei~ner tlerb~~, and MOTIQN CARRIEll (Commisafoner Faruno be~ng abaent} that the Plsnning Commission, in connection w~.th i;he pxemption decl.ai~atlon titatue request, finds and deter° m.ines that tha propoaal would hava no signifir.ant environme~ntal impact a:id, therefore, roaommends to the City Cauncil that. no Environmental Impact State- ment ia naceseary. Cnmmissioner Herbst offered Resolutinn No. PC7a~16 and moved for its ~aesage and adoption t4 grlnt Pdtikion tor Varianae No. 2575 subject~ to tho t~tipulation by the psti1;ion~r that less than 2~ of salos at the ~ubject 7.ocativn would bz retail in nature, and subject ~o c:onditiona. (See ~2esolu~tion Book) On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the follow2r-~ voto: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, King, Seymour, Gauor. NOES: COMMISSIOI~ERS: None. AASENT: COMMISSION~RS: Faran~. VARIANCE N0. 2574 - PUBLIC HEARING. L. J. AND P. E. HOLMBERG, 618 Cypresa, "'- Sarita Ana, Ca. 92701, ]1T~ P.OBERTS PLYMAUTH, INC. ,].239 Soutlz Beacti Boulevard, Anaheim, Ca. 92804, FRA,NCHISE REAI~TY INTERSTATE CORPORATION, 6922 Hollywood Boulevard, Hollywood, Ca. 90028, Ownera; GREG S. GEORC;*', Rsal Estate Repr~sentativc, Franchiae Realty Interstate Corp., 6922 Hollywo~a II~ulevard, Holly*aood, Ca. 90028, Agent; req~iesting WAIVER qF (A) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (B) MIN3.MUM DTSTANCE BETWEEN FREE- STANDING SIGNS, (C) MAXIMUM AR~A OF FRrE-STANDING SIGNS, AND (Dl PEfi.MITTED LOCATION OF FR~E-STANDING SIGN TO ~STABLISH TWO FREE-~TANDING STGNS on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel. uf land consisting of approximately .9 acre, having approximate frontages of 30 feet o,- the w~c~t sid~ of Anaheim Boul.eva~d ancl 147 feet on the north side ~f Ball Road, having a maximum depth of ~pproximAt,ely 270 feet, and being lacated appr.oximately 2q0 feet west of the centerline of Anaheim Boulevard, and further deacribed as 119 West Ball Road. Property presently classifi.ed C-1, G~NERAL COMMFRCIAL, }1ND C-3, HEAVY COMMER- CIAL, ZONFS. No one appeared in oppasition to subject petition. Although the St•aff Report to the Commission was nat read at the public hearing, it is r~ferred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Greg George. representing the propert,y ownerj aopeared before the Cotnmission and stated the maximsm area of the proposed free-standing si.gn had been adjusted and, ther.efo.re, he wau].d stipulate to withdrawal of the request €or Waiver "c". THE PUBLIC HEARING WA~ CLOSED. Upon inquiry of Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Genrge stipulated that ~he er.~t from subject property onto Anat~eim Baulevard would be utilized for making riyht-hand turns anly. Commissioner Seymour offered a m~tio~-, seconded by Commissioner H~rbst, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Farano being absent) that the Planning Commission, i.n connection with an exemption declara~ion status request, .finds anci de~er- mines that the proposal w~uld have no significan~ environmental impact ancl, therefore, re.~omanends to the City Council th~.~G no Environmental Impact StatF- ment is necessary. Commissioner Seymour of£ered Resalution No. PC7~-17 and moved for its passage and adoption i.o grant Petition for Variancp No. 2574, i.n part,~~since the ~eta.- tioner sti ulated to withdrawal ~f Waiver c; that Waivers a, b and c ara grante~ nn the bar~is tha~ the proposal ia u,7ique as illustrated bx the plans anc~ the size :~nd sha~c~ of the land and~ further,,that the petitioner sti ulated that a hardshi would be creat~d if said waivers wAre not ranted; subject to the condition ~hat traffic exiting from the subjec:t proper~y onto Anaheim BouZevard would uti'lize right-hand ~kurns on1X, as sti~.~ulated to by th? petitioner; and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On Xoll call the fcregoing resolution wae pas~sec~ by the following vote: AYES: CnMMISSIUNERS: Herbst, King, Seymour, Gauer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: F~'ano. r 1 U ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNI.N~ CUMMTSSION, Janumzy 21, 1974 74-44 CONDITION}1L USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WTLLIAM A. 9AYZERMAN, 6980~C Knott Avonuo, P~itMIT NO. 1451 Buona Par.k, Ce. 90621, Owneri TONY SHQBASH, 9722 West `~ ~"` Katqll.a Av~nue, Anaheim, Ca. 92804, Agentf requestinq permigeion ~or an ON-SAL~ LIQUOR E8T1~1ALISIiMENT nn prnp~+xty descrlbed as: A rectangularly-ahaped parcel o~ land coneisting af approximately .85 acre, tiaviny a frnntage of approx~mately 135 Peet on tha eas~ side of Euclid Strec~t, h,3ving ~ maximum depth of approximately 275 fc~et, ~nd being located apprrximstsly 19S feet narth of the aonter].ine of Broadway, and further des-- cribed He 254-258 South Eucli.d St•reet. Pr.oparty ~roe~ntly claoaified C-1, GEN~RIIL COMN~RCZAI~, ZONE . No one appearQd in opposition to subjec~ petition. Alt.hough ths Staff Rapor.t to the Commission was n~t read at the public he~sring, it ie refer.red to and made a part of the minute~. Mr. Stan Hi~tala,430 Rut~ Street, Laguna Beo.ch, Califarnia, appeared be£or.e the Commi~siori reprssonting ti.~ petitianer, and stat$d the proposed uae was a permitted use in the C-~, Zone and there ~aere similar an-sale liquor establieh- ments in the area~ that the pr.oposed use would be within an eetablished shop- p~ng center w~th adequate parking providedt that ~.he potitioner was r~squesting a mi~nor deviation in the aize of the kitchon and othezwiae there were no variances from the Code requirements. Rssistant Zoning Supervisor Phil].ip Schwartze read a letter of opp~sition rPceived from the Anaheim Board of Realt~rs ~nd said letter is r.eferred to ae if set f~rrh in full in the minutes. TIIE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Gauer stated he was opposed ta t.he proposed plan sinc~ no zoom div~cier was being provi.ded between the dining faailities and ~hP cocktail bar. Mr. Hietala ~ated that a screen was provided to the ceiling as a divider and ttxere was nc 'ntent to waive ttie Code on that issue. Tn rESponae to questioning of Commi~sioner Herbst, Mr. Schwartze advised the kit~hen did noL• comply with the requirement that 25$ of the gross Floor area must be permanently designed for food preparation and that the plans indicated appr~xim~tely 18.58 for said foo3 preparation. Upon questioning ef Comr.iissioner Seymour, t~ir. Hietala stated the hours of opera- tion for the cocktail bar would be from 10;00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. and th~ restau- rant would be open beginning at noon~ Cnmmissianer Herbst inquired if there was any reason why the petitioner could -~ot comply with the 25$ gross floor are~ far the kitchen, and Mr. Hietala stated increasing the kxt~chen area would create an awkward glan and poas~t~]y a security problem~ Mr. Hieta]a indicated i E the C~mmission believed the pr.~p~~~~d kitchen size was undesirable, they would make the necessary acl~us~ment. Commissionex Herbst made an ob~ervation that a].though the plans for ~he estab- lishment migh~ be satisfactory at this particular point in time, a futare own~r might requlre a variance; that when buildings which were not compa~ible with the Cnde passed to new ownership, the Code matters did not become important with the new accup~nts and the Planning Commissinn wished to abide by the Code where possible. Chairman Gauer noted that if the petitioner would be rede~igning the layout, a continuance would be required. Mr. Hietal~ stated aince Staff would be r~viewing the Alcoholic Beverage ControJ. license request, the revised plana coulsl be revic~wed at that time; and that the petiti4ner. would be happy to meet the Code and insure that th+e 25~t gross floor space was alloc~ted ~a the kitchen area. Mr. Schwartze noted for the Commisaion that the restaurant would be allowed by right by `.he on-sale liquor license. ~ ~ MINU'1'ES, CITY PL'ANNING COMMISS7:ON, January 21, 1974 74-A5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ~NO~ 14~1 ~Cantinued) Commibaioner Herbet noted that the Commiesion could deny subjeut petition ae far ae the gize af the kitchon wae ooncerx.ed~ :~nwever, thc~ Commi~slon was look- ing at tha alLOholic, aspact of t'~e uea. Chairmen Gauer ~ffored a motion, seconded by Commieeioner Seymour, to raapdn the publ~c t~ea.r.ing and continua vonei.deration of Petit~on £or Conditional Uoe prrmit Na. 1dS1 to the meeting of Fabrua~ry 4, 1974. Said motion r+~ce~.ved the f~].lowing vot9s AYESs ~~MMI~5IANERS: Seymour, Gauaz. NOES: COMMISSIONEItS ~rbst, King. AHSENT: COMMISSICNERS: . ~~r.ano. Cammi.ssioner Herbat affered a ro~solution t~ grant Conditional Li~e Permit No. 1451 yubject t~ the pc~~it•ioner submitting rQVisad plane indicating complianoe with the Code regarding the 258 gross flo~r araa for the kikchen, said plans t.o b~+ raviewed by Development S~rvicea Staff prior to City Counc:ll reviawj and s~bject ta c~nditione. zoning Supervieor Charles Roberts adviaed thRt the ~ondition of appruval cauld be alterecl to read "Ttiat sub~ect property shall b9 3ev~eloped substantially in accordance with p-qns and specifi.cations on file wii;h the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2j pravidad, however, tYiat a minimum of 258 floor araa sha11 be devoted to the kitchen area, and furthermore that revised planss shall be submitted kA the Planni.nq Commisafon prior to City Councii review." ~le further staterl t~at said review could b~ acaamglished undex~ Regorts axid Recommendatians. The foregoing motian recaiv~d the following vokP: AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Herbst, King. NOES: COMM~SSIOI3ERS: 5eymour, Ga~zer. ABSENT: COMMTSSIONERS: Farano. Deputy City Attorngy Fxank Lowry advised the motian tQ continue the matter to Fe~bruary 4, 1974, CARRIED. Commisaion~x Seymour noted although he was a member of. the Anaheim ~oard of Realtora, he d~d not feel he had a.:onf~ict o~ interest in the considEration of the foreg~ing matter. • VARIANCE NO. 2570 - CONTINUED PUBLTC HEARING. DAVID R. DOERING, 1203 West Linc~ln Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92805, Owner= reguesting WAIVE R OF (A) PERMITTED USES, (B) REQUIItED 6-FOUT HTGH SOLID MAS~NRY WAI~L, (Cj REQUIR~D FFONT SETBACK, AND (D) RFQUIR~;A LANDSCAPING TN FRONT SETBACK r TO ESTABL~SH A COMMERC:LAL P,ARK~NG LOT Iy 7.`HE R-•3 ZO~NE on proper~ty described as: A p~rtion af a rectangularly-shaped parcel of lan3 consisting of approximately .45 acre, sai@ portion having a£rontage ~f approximately 92 feet on the south side of Diamond 5treet, having a maximum depth of approximate].y 132 f~et, and being located approxima!:ely 80 f~et west o£ the centerline of Carleton Avenue, and f~.~rther degcribed aa 1206 West Diarnond Street. Propdrty presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE:-FAMILY RESIDENTI?,L, 20NE. Subject petition was contxz~ued from the meeting of Deaenber 27, 1973, for furtha.r study. Mrs. Marg~ret Sullivan indicated her presence in oppoaition to subject peti4ion and waived full reading of the Staff Kepart to the Commission. SaiB Staff Report ls referred to as if set forL-h in full in the minutea. Mr. David Doering, the pet.itioner, appea~ed before the Commission and read from an articlo which appeared in th~ Araheim Bulletin and referred to state- ments made therein by ~ommiasioner Seymc:ur. He stated the real issus at ha~id was not moralityt that he y~as requesting s parkinq lot to save on traffic congestfon in the area; that he owned ~everal propert~`s in the area which ~ ~ e MINUTES, CxTX T?S,ANNING COMMI.~STON, :Tanuary 21, 1974 74-46 VARIANCE N0._ 2570 (Cont~.nued) ____.~._._. did not havo parkingt tha~ he was tur.ned down by tho Planning Ccrmmiesion when h~ wr~nted to put in a cocktail iounge bevause of the lack uf parkiny~ that tha subj~ct property was preeently an ayoe~re and a fi.~o ~iazar~{' that he wae desir- ous of clearing up the matt~r ~E the i~~su~s presdnked by Gommisa~oner Seymour dt thA CoromiasiAn me~l;ing Qf Dacember Z7, 1973. Mr.. Dodring continued by sta~ing Y~Q di.d not think he could gst a- f31r heax~ing unleas he discueaed the ph:ilogophiaal ir~eues presented at k.ha previous hearing, and Chairman Gau~r ncted that the hearing would be c~nfineti to strict discuasion of the subject garking lot. Mre. Margaret Sullivan, 11.22 Wegt Diamond Stree~, Anaheim~ eeppenxed before tho Commisaion in opposit~.on and stated she was upposed L•o the parki:~g lat because it had been brought ~o her attention what the parking lot would be used farj tr,at Mr. Doering stated that the upstairs of the cocktail lounqe was his apart- ment office, how~ver, an~ther person was advi~ed kYiat the upstairs was beinq used as ~ tY~ode~ing agenayt and that ahe was a seametress and, 3.n her opinion, this was nat a modeling ~zyency. TIIE Pi1BY,IC HEAI~ING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymo~ir offered a mation, seconded by Commissioner ICing and MaTION CARRIED (CA*_nmissi~ner Farano being absent) th~t thP Flanning Commission, in connection with an exe ti~tion declaration sta~us requeat, finds ana dete•rminea that th~ propnsal woald have no signifa.cant environmental impact and, ~herefore, re~ommends to L-he City Council that no Environmental Impac~t ~*atemQnt is neces s ary . Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC74-18 and moved f~r its passage and ad~p:ion to deny Petition for Variance No. 257~ on the basis that the petitioner did not demanatrate that a hardship would b~ cr.eated if Waivers a, b, and c were not qranted; and that Waiver d is denied on the basis that sub- ject properi:y is located in a rPSidential neighborhood, and the noise, lights, and gener~l disturbance generated by automobiles ani! users of the parking lot are not compa~;ible wi:h the residential envi.r~nment. (See Resolution Book) Commissioner H~rbst noted for the Commissian that parking tots werP not ger- mitted ir. R-3 Zones; thut the only way a parkinc~ lot could be developed in the subject area would be through an area development study of the full block for a determination as tn whether a zone change was necessar.y for the area in uzder to change one lot and thua allow the parking lot; that the Code also required a 15-foot setback and 15 feet of landscaping adjaceni: to a local street, and f-foot high masonry wa1Z3 adjacent to residential u~es; th~t the petitioner did not wxsh to prpvide any of these ~nd this was adequate justification for denial of the subjec~ petiti~;i. The foregoing res~lution was passed by the follo~r~ing vote: AYES: COMMISSTONER.S: Herbst, King, Seymour, Gauer. NpES: COMMISSTONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. TEN~ORARY ADJOJRNNIENT - Chairman Gauer adjourned the meetir~g f~r dinnex• at 6:45 p.m. RECONVENE - Chairman Gauer rec~~nvened the ~,.~eting at 8:15 p.m., Wi~h Commissioners Iierbst, Kinq az~d Seymour being present. ~ ~ MINL~r~.S, CITY PT~ANNtNG COMMTSSION, :January 21, 1974 74•-47 FNVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - R~ADVERTISED PUIILIC IiEARSNG. ROBE~tT H. GRANT CURP., 221 12EPORT NO. 109 We~t Dyer Road, 3anLa Ann, Ca. 92707, Owner; E. L. PEA~tSON ~ t~ ASSOCIAT~:S, 3955 Dirrh Str.aQt, Newport 8each, Ca. 92660, RECI.ASSIFICATION Agent. Propc~r.ty deecribed e~s: 11n •lrr.egularly-shapeci ~~, ~g_?,q_3~ para~.L of land aoneistir-g Uf approximatoly 30.3 acre~ located on the nortl~ and 9ou~h aide~ cP Nohl Renoh Road, CONDTTIQNAI, USE westerly of. thQ interaection af T.mperial Eiighway and Nohl PE~?MIT NA. 1439 Ranch Raa~i. Proporty preaently classified CoUNTY A1, `' GENERAL AGRICULTLIRAL, DISTRICT AD1D ~~STY AF ANA1iEIM R-A, TEN' 1TT~lE M}1P OF AGRTCULTUFAL, ZON~. TI2AC'!.' NO. 8533, FtEVI3I0N NC~. 1 REQUES'rED CLASSSFICATION t R-2, MULTIPLr~°FAMILY -~-- ' RFSIDEN`.CIAI~, ZONE. REQUES'1'F:D C:ONDITIONAL USE: ~STABLl'SH A 171-UNTT ~LANNED RESIDENTIAI, DEVELnPMENT WITH WAIVER Qr (A) R~QUTR~.D b~1tONTA~3E n~ LQTS QN A DEDICATED STREET, (B) MxIvIMUM BUI?~DING ~STE ATtEA, (C) MINIMUM BUILDiNG SITE WIDTH, (D) MT.itIMUM BUILD- ING HEIGfiT WTTHIN 1S0 FEET OF A SINGLE•-FAMILY RESIllEN1TAL ZONE, (~) REQU]:RFL~ B~,OCK 4J11LI, ABUTTING A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZUNE, AND (F) MINIMUM DIS'P~1NCE IIETWE~N BUILDTNGS . TENTATIVL TRA(:T RFQUr:ST: 173 R-2 2aned lots. Subject petiti.~ns were conti.nued from the mee~ting o£ De^ember 10, 1973, for ~urther study and £rom ~he meetiiiy of January 7, '1974, .:. the requer~t of the petitioner and for readvertigemer.t purposea. A~proximately 50 persons indicated their presence in opposi.tion. Assiatant Zoninq Supervisor Phillip Schwartzs read •the Staff Regnrt i:o the Commission dated Jan~iary 21, 1974, and said Staff Report is referred t~ as if set farth in f.ult in the minutes. He furtiher stated that the two cor~ner parc~ls revioualy proposed to be excluded from the subject development had now been incorporated int~ the propoaed project. Mr. John Millick appzarecl before the Commission in behalf of AnaYieim Hills, Inc., and stated fallowing his pregentation he wauld make himself availrxble as long as necessary to respond to any ques~:ions and provide the requested information; that the original intent was to have a convenience market and service stat3on at the two corxier proF~rties which the P].anning Commission had expressed cox-cErn over; that with a development already approved for a shopping center in the area, it would not make s~nse to proce~d with tl;eir original intention for development for those two corners; that Anaheim Hills, Inc. Y~ad offered the two parcels to Grant Corporation and it was ~heir feel.ing that the two parcels should be part of the total development being proposed. Mr. John Fredrickson, representing the Grant Corporation, appeared before ~he Commission and deGCribed the proposal in detail and stated regarding the Planning Cr~mmission's concern relating to tlie locati.on of the recreatio~nal vehicle parking area,'that the developer had c~ncl.uded that the bPSt locat.io:. was as previously indicate3; that if the recrea~ional vehiale garking area was m~ved farther away from the slape, it woulr~ become increasingly visible to the adjacent Westridge project and wauld al.so cre:atE problems within ttie proposed project. He continued by stating the typical er.teriors af the proposed proaect were *_he same high quality as the Westridge project as they had endeavored to make the pr~~ec~~s blend and be compatible. He questioned the condition of approval set forth in the St~ff Report (page 16-h, Item 14) "tha~ th.e entire ultimate width of Imperial Highway south of Nohl Ran~'. Road shall be included within the bnundary of subject tract"; tlzat in his experience, this condition w~s samewhat unusual as it was normally required that tlae developer improve the road to the centerline anc3, therefore, he would raquest that the referenced condition be deleted. Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, President, Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Associ~stion, Inc., appeared before the Commission in opposition ~n subject petitions and camment~d concerning the environmental impact of ~.he ~roject that stated there were' too many condominiums bein~ constructed in the area. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNTNG ~OMMISSIUN, January 21, 1974 74-48 ~NVIRONNIENTAL IMPACx REPORT N0. 109~ R'ECLASSTF'ICAmION NO. 75-74-3Q, CONUIT~ONAL US~ PE~tMIT NO. 1439, ANA 'PENTATIV~ MAP OF TItAC't` rTO. 8533, REVISIOt~ N0. 1(Cont'd.) Mx. Churles French, 544 Tumbleweed Road, Anaheim, appQarAd before the Commiseton ae Chairman of the Anaheim Hills Homaowngr~ Aeeociation and pras~nted pc~titi~ns in opposition to aub;ect petitional s~icl petitions aontained ~pE~roximately 346 aiqndturea af. xc~aidents in the area. Eie stated that the integrit~ of the aroA would be ubli~erated by the ~k-ort-torm profit gc,al of tho developorJ thet the propoeed condominium projoct wu~ald double the popula~ion density for the areai that there would be an .tncreaee iii traffic and conge~tion therefromf tl•~at tho i.ncrease in populmtion wauld cause evQn grea~er loads t~ be placed on the ~lre~dy ovnrcrowded schools in the area; that tha <~itizer~s were looking for repres~nta- tion tram the Ci~y~ GovQrnment, thouqh the Grant Corporation had indicat»d ~o ths ci.tizens thafi they ware wasting their time; that the citi.zens wera vitally in- vo~ved and urged the Planning Commissian to deny aubject petitiona. Mr. Roger Wilson, representing the Orangt~ UniEi.~~d Scha~l T~iatrict, appeared befari tY~e Commission and read a letter dated January 21, 197A, from tht Scl~ool District tn opposition to subject petitions. (Said letter ~••as pres~nted ~or fili.ng purpoees.) Mr. Wilson comment.ed that ~he School District was ori.ginally informesd k,y the City that the total Ranch wauld be developed ak a density of 4.0 units per acre. Upori inquiry of Chairman Gauer, Asaistant Development ~ervices Dir~ctor R~nalc~ Thompson advised that the tracts that had been approved to date were considerably under t.he 3.6 units per acre originally approved iiz the General Plan; and that those rapproved tract~ represented approximatelX 30$ of the ~:~tal develc~pment in the ar~a. Mr. Wilson continued :~y stating that they hoped the ci.tizens of the Orange Unitied School Distr.ict would hel.p to pass the achool bon~is scheduled for the March 1979 election; that the Schaol Dis~•rict feared the City Council approvi.ng ~tracts prior to construction of scY~ool faailities that were obvi~usly neecl~~ in the Hills area; and that they woul.d prefer that the development in the Hi.lls area h~ phased so that funds would be available when needed. Upon inquiry of Commissioner Seymour, Mr. Wilsan indicated the Schanl Distriat would not have funds wii:h which to bui~ld schools unless the bond eleetior. passed, and that th.e children that would be gener.ated from th~ proposed project wouln be out on do~able sessions; further, that the Schoo~ Bistrict definitely had no funds with which to build schools at the prese.nt time; and that it was illegal to spend m~n~ey that you did not have . Upon inquiry of Commissioner Herbst, :~r. Wilson stated that they were not making this same pr.esentation regarding the disposition of sch~ola to the City of Orange because the schur~ls were needed in the Hil.ls area; that he di.d not kr~ow if the bond election would affect schools in ~range; however, some of the schools in Orange were reaching capacity; that the City of Orange wa~ currently using ~ "no gr~wth" policy and in camparison, the development was'1:4 in the City of Anah~im; that the majority of the voters of the School District lived in the Ci•ty of Orange. He atated there was a crisis and he was seeking the cooperation of the City o£ Anaheim. Upon inquiry of Chairman Gauer, Mr. Wi.lson indic;ated h~: would prPfer n:~t to answer questions reiating to borrowed funds frem the Stai:e, etc.; that he would siigqest a letter be directEd to the Superintendent of the Orange Unified S~.:hool District who was qualified to answer in detail. Commissionez Seymour noted for too long matters had been relayed by letter; that he understood the problems cnncerning the schools, however, until this City, the City of Orange, and thP School Da.strict got together to come ta some k:Lnd c~f agreement, nathing cauld reall}r be accnmplished. Mr. Wilson stated there was a desire for a planning syetem b~tween t;ze cities and the School District and letters had bedn written requesting such a joint planning committee. Mr. Steve Severy, 5~38 Spyg].ass Way, Anaheim, appeared before the Commission ~n opposition to subject petitians and sta.ted the r~esidents wanted some kind of coaperation frc~m the City of Anaheim regarding the school situation, and that there needed to be some concern shown foz the education of the children. e ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY P1~ANNINu COMMISSION, J'anuary 21, 1974 74-49 ~NVIRQNNl~NTAL IMPACm R~PhPT NO. 109, RECLASSIFICATION Nb. 73~-74-30, CONDITIONAI. USE PERMTT NO. 1439, AND TENTATIVE Ml~P OF TRACT N0. 8533f REVZSTQN Nll. 1(Con~~d. Mxe. K~sy Be~g, 5352 Westridge Ruad, Anaheim, appe~red before the Commi~sfon in oppaeit9.on an~l comme~nted concorninq the exiating schoole 1 tha-t her ahild wag presently on double sese~on and the school ^chec~ulea were baing ehortenecl~ that she was proud to bo an Anaheim re~ident and the ~iilla wero beautiEul a~d they would likf~ them kept that way. Mr. ,~eff Holt, 5435 Spxglase Way, Annl~eim, appeared before thQ Commieeion in oppo~ition to subject peti*_iane and atated he concurrod in the atatements of the other resi~3ents i-ogarding thc schoo]. aituatiQn~ that in addition, the prapoaed clen~ity would cro~t;p a~r~blem rc~lated to the firo protection in the Areat that on~ fire 3tation wz-s located Rt Santa Ana Canyon R~ad and ~dkeview, another was located near Auton~stica approxi,mat~ely four ariles from the subject area and that ~the next bac?c-up fire unii: would comQ from Broa~way and Euc~id, appr~ximately nine miles away; that the propoeed density would increase the oppor.tuni~y for firea ln the area; that bruoh fires hac~ been experi.enced by almost all the residents i.n Orang~ ~ountyj and he inquired if there wera addi- tianal plana for f.i.re prot~ction in the r~r~a. THE PURLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Assistaz-t Zoning SuperviEOr Philli~ Schwartzc~ advissd thcare had aeen no indica- ~tion £rom the Fire Department tha~ there would be a problem provid~rig fire ~roteation to the eubject area; i:hat the Fire Department had reviowed the applioatian and was usually faz ahead c~f anyone c~lae in regard to the nlanning for the Anaheim Hill~ area, Upon inquiry of C~r,uni.asioner Seymour, Mr. Doyle, representing Anaheim Hills, Inc., stated they were just as concerned as a.yone else regarding firs protec- tian for the subject area; that they had provided rather lar3e g.rePn areas within the projectt that there was both County and City fire pr.otectiori for the area and there was adequate access; that approximately $5,~Ob had been spent this year for fire breaks; that the Anaheim Fir~ Department had ordered some new equipment which wc>uld be deliver.ed early in the year; that a new fire s~aticn rnight be c~n~~ructed soon; that four schnol sitc~s had t,een made avail- able to the School District si:ice Z970 when thP master plan was drawn up; that t•he School District had not £elt it was neceasary to make atiy ~f the purchases of the ac:-ool s:ites . Upon further inquiry of Mr ~iolt, Mr. Schwartze advised that an emergency fire exit was beinq requested on Cabri:llo; ~thai: the Fire Department review of the projer:t includea a review oE the plot plan ~nd ~;easurement of the di3tances between the buiJ.dings, the length of the cul-de-sacs, and the turn-aioun.ci areas, etc. Ms. I'ox, ~~.torney :~pres~nting Anaheim Hil.ls, Inc. and Texaco Ventures, Inc., appeared before th Commission and stated she was ~,leased to see~ the local residents present Ms. Fox read f.rom a prepared statement which dir~ctec7 many que~~ions ~o the School District officials; she gointed out that the School District was holding appr~ximatPly sia sites undeveloped at the present time which could he sold if they needed the moneyf ~hat the matters being questioned were covered in the Er~vironmental Impact Report which was provided as ari inform- ative document; that th~ EIR was not intended to suggest solutions to any problem; that her client. would like to help the situation, however, they could not do so when the School Distric~t filed law suits a.gainst them. In rebuttal, Mr. Wilson stated that Orange Unified School District Superintend- ent Mr. Ingwersen was an expert in the f.ield of environmental law in tihe State of California; that in September ?972, Mr. Tnqwers~en initiated a joint meeting with the City of Anaheim at the Orange Unified School Di~trict Board Meeting and was totally dedicated to the crisie which was caming quickly ta the Santa Ana C~yon and Hills area; that at the meeting a lot of rhetoi~ic took place but nothing came abou~t; that letters had been directed to the City suggesting a City schdol and Ci~y gavernment comm~ttee be £ormed *_n solve the crises; that appzoxi_ mately five other dis~ricts had m~de similar requesta for a committee to talk about planning and gzowth, and s~ill yet, nothing had developed in ~ttiis rpgard; ~ ~ • 74~5Q MINU'I'ES, C~~rY PLANNING COMMIS5tON, JAnunry 21, 1974 L~NVIRONMENTAL JMPACi' R~;PORT N0. 109, RECLASSII"xCAT10N N0. 73~74-30~ CONnITIONAL U3E PERMIT N0. 1439s AND TENTATIV~ MAP OF TR}~CT N0. 8533, ~VISION_N0. 1(Cont'd.) tNat he did not tl~ink anyone should gtate that tilP, Oranqe Uni.fi.ed Sohaol Diatrict had not: mnde any effnrt~ the~t he llad tabulated inf.ormation roga~rdiny the develop- ment o~ the Canyan and Hi.lla ~rea ~nd thnt hie figures indic~~9d m~re th~an 1S~ of tihe to~al. develo~m9nt in tha Hills ~rea wae represAnted by tl-e subjeot project. Mr. L'rench again appeared befnro the Com~miesion and atated iP the Planning Commisgi.on approved t.he propos~l with~ut due aonsideration ta th~ ~chools, thay would be nbdicating thei.r rQSpo~naibility. Chairman Gauor noted that when he wr~s Superinten~le.nt of the Anaheim School piotrict, thare were times whez~ they had to sell s.haols~ that there w9re eome half-claX or double seesloztsr bu~. in ttie meantime th~:y built and purchmaed 22 achuol sites in Anaheimt ~h$~ the City Planni~~g Commisaion aould not solve the ~chool pxoblem and it was up to the School nistrictt and that the taxpayers and individual~ in the areu had to appeal to the School Board if they wera yoing t~ solve the problem. rammissiuner Seym~ur. noted that the City Att;orney had pruviously indlcatQd to the Planning Commission that the schoola were noc in ti~e purview of th~e Cityj howevcr, if th~ City coulc~ do anything, it was not at the Planning Commission levelt tha~ th~e Cammission was concerned anly wi.th zon~ng and laild use mattexs. He further statecl that at the inception af Anaheim ~iills, tha Conunisaion was advised subject property was p*-rposed fnr low density devel.opment; tha~ what had happened si.nce that time, ..~d rnot justify a much higher d~nsity. Mr. Millick appearecl before the Commission and statQd he did not recall thxt a represer.i:ative of the Corporation had represented R-H-10,000 t~ the Commissionj that the az~a was to be developed with a combination of R-1 detacr.e.d and conc~o- mir-iums which was a campatible mix in terms of density, price and loratian, qtc.= that throughout the pla.nned communi~y there were varying degrees of product types including R-~1, towntiouses, Tero lot ].ines, equestrian areas, etc.; that with regarc~ to ~he long-range plans of e'~nahe3m Hi].is, they could not affard t.o mak~ mistakss. Upon questioning of Commissioner Seymour, Mr. Fzedricksor. described the a11ey ~ystem with the 28 feet and 36 fe~t widths beinq proposed; and t~S:ated that the alley would function as a private alley system. Commissiener Herbat questioned if t}ie Commissi.on could allow p:civate alleys tYxroughout the project and Office Engineer Jay Titus advised he was not aware of any situation w:~ere thi~ had bFan allowed thraughout an entire pr~ject. Zoning Supervisor rharles Roberts advised that app~oximately tw~ years ago some project~ were developed with driveways or street standarda less ti~an current standardsj that the City was in a learning grocess, hc~wever, the projects he was referring t.o :vere less tlian were a1low~ed prior to the adopted priva~e street standarda. Mr. Fredrickson stat~d curb ai~d gutters~were proposed except at the entrance to the garage~ in the Q.roject. Commissianer Herbst nated tha~t the subject property 5`emed to be appropriate f~r a loc~ic~l extension of the Westri.dge t•ract= and that he was under the impressian tha~ the property above Rancho Bernarao No. 2 ~;ould remain R-H-10,000; tha~c the proposEd project crossed Nohl Ranch Road; th~t he c~u1d no~ envision why the developer ha3 taken a successful development like Westridge and cut it off when ~he area could have continuity. Mr. Fredriakson stated in regard to the proposed planning, that it was good planninq *.o k~ave a vaxiety of markets as not everyone wan~ed to live in West- rridge; that if they were ~allowed to comp~ete th~ proposed project, the City would be proud o.f it. ~ ~ • MTt•.U'rLS, CI'~Y 1i'L11NNiNG COMMISS~ON, Januery 21, 19 ~ 4 14-51 ~NVIRONMENTIU~ IMPACT R~PORT N0. 109, RECLASqIFTCATION N0. ')3-74-30, ~0~3DI'rIONl~1L Z,15E PERMIT N0~ 1439~ 1~ND~ T,E~ITATTVE ~ Ok'~ ~'~CT NO. 8533~ REVIS'tON N0. ~(Cont'd. Chc+izm~~n rauer noted he ltad reenrvet'~no roqar~linq tho alloy dituati.on in th~ p~:upc~eed ~xc~eG~~ t~hat h~ was in ac:ord with Commiseioner Her.bAt'e atat6ment in relati~n ta R-H-10,000 developmen~. Gommig~ianar Har.bst notsd that ~h~ EIR No. 7.09 euggyptQd alternate .c~es~.dentie~ Qovelo~mc~nt of tl~a ~ub,~~ct- pxopeztY With re~ducad lan~ coverage us a poasibi~.i.tyt that eince ik wda a poeaibility, hA t.l-oughL ~hie alter:~tste could be mado a raali~.y i,i thie area. Con~nie~loner Seymour offezed A motl.on, seconded by CommisQi.oner King, and :NamzON CARR~:ED (Cormi.ssi.~r~er l~ar.ano being rabeAnt) tk~et the P].a-ining Commiseion, in connecti~n wi.th ~he Liliny ~~f ~riviranmental Impaat Rapor'c No. 149, finda ena de @~'1Tl~I1138 i:hat th~ EI~ l2evxow Cammittee detettnined th~t the r~part ie adequr~te as ar- infUrmakive do~um~nt ar~d followa th~ Ci1:y's c~at~aloliehed guideli.nes. and tha~ t;~~re w~uld be no si.gnificant ndvdrae e~nvironm~antal impactt and, therefore, th~ Plarning Comtt:ission zecnmmend~ ta the City Council that said report be udoptecl as the Council's Envirunmental ImpacC Stntemert. Camaniseioner Seymour offered RAsulution No. ~C74-..~ and movad for iCs paaaage and ad~pti~n ~o recommend to the City Cou~ncil tl~at Rarlassificati~n t?o. 73-74-30 be digappzov~cl on ttie basis of th~ fdrQgoing findi.ng~ of thA C~mmia~i~n. (: ~~ Resolution gaok) The forPC?oing resoluti.on was passad by the tollowing vote: AyES: COMMI3SZOIJE~t5: Herbst, Ring, Seymour, Gauer. Nt~E~ s C.U:S21I SS IONE RS : None . ABSEN~': COMt4I~5T~NERS: Farano. ~^ommiasioner H~rtst nated th~t his votE was nU~:. i.r,fluFnce3 by t.he sr.haol prnblem. Comanissioner Seymour offered Reaoiutio:~ r~o~ PC74-21 and moved for its ~assage t~n~i ada~tion to deny Canditional UsE Permit No. 1439 or th~ bas~s thati 9i.nce the Con~n~ission recommende~ disappra~~al. of the r~ec].ar~sificati~ ~~f subject property, the propoaed development could not be ~ec~mp].i.shed within the si.te development standarde of the zoning on stibj~ct property. (See Reanluti~n gook) On roll call the foregoing resoiution was psssec~ 5y thP following votP: AY~Ss COMMISSIONERS: Iierbst, King, Seymoa.r, Gauer. NOES : CUbIMISSSONEF~ : I~one . ABSENT: COl~itdIS5I0NER:~ ; ?arano. Commissioner Seymour offered a m~t~.on, seconded U,y Commissiox~er EIerbst and MOT]:ON CARRIED (Commissioner Farano being ak,sen~:) to deny Ter.tatj ve Map of Tzact No. 9533, Rev.ision No. 1, or~ the basis tr~at th~ Cnmmission '~ac~ recummended that the rer_;.as5ificati.on petition be disapprcved, and subc'.ivisioit of subject property cauld n~t be accomFlished within the existing zoni.~g on the property. ~ ~ ~ MINITrE5, CITY kLANNING COb,MISSIC~N, Januax'y 21, 1974 ~~5~ ~NViRONN~NTAL iMPACT - PUHI,IC HEARTNG. ,JOAN H~RRY, ET AI~, 7.0282 Wes~.ey Cirolc~, REPOA~r NO. 99 - liuntinyton Beaoh, Ca. 92646, own~re~ W2I.LIAM H. MILi.ER, READ«RTISI:D 9732 Hazard Avenan, San~a Anu, C~. 92703, Agents ~ rc~qve~t~nq that ~roperty ~ouaribeQ ae: A rectangula•:ly~• RECLASSIFICATI~N ehaped parcel of land coneietinq of eppruximately 4.3 N0. 73-74-20 acres ~t the eouthwzat corne,x o! Cresaant Avonue an~ -' Nngnalia Avenue, havinq frontages af. aQproximntaly 620 Pea~ on the south ei.de of Creeoent Avenue and 306 feet on tho we:~t r~ide af Magnolia Avenue, be reclaesified from the R-A, AGRIC:ULTURAL, ' ZONF to the C--1, GEI~FRAL Cf1MMERCIAL, ZONE. Sub ject peti.ti~.-~ was cons idered by the P 1,nni.nq Commiseion on BeFtern2aer 17 , 1973 and recommondad to the C~ty C~uncil for d.~izialj eeubaequently, the peti- tion~z su}am~,tted roviaed plana whi.Gh the~ C'i t~y Cuuncil referred b~ck to the ~lanning Commiasion for ,re-hea~ring. Aseist~nt 2ontng Supervisor Phil.lip ~chw.~-rtze noted far the Commiaeion thmt the p~ti tionor v~ae requ~~ting a four-week continuance to Februar.y 20, 1g 7•4 , in order to pre~are addit ional exhi.bits . Commissianer King offoroc3 a mai:ion, a~conded by Conuni~aioriar Sa,ym~ur Rnd MOTION CARI2IED ~C~mmieaion6r Farano being abaent) to continue publi:: hearing for con- eidc~ration of Environmontal tmpaar Report No. 99 (readvertiaed) and Reala~gifi-- cr~tior~ Na. 73-74-20 to the me~ting ~f Februer.y 20, 197~. CONDITIONA~~ UST - PUBLIC HEARING. LEONAkD G. SMITH, T~tUSTE~r 1~5-D So'.~th PEkM~~ NO. 1449 Claudi..a Street, Anaheim, (;a. 92805s requeating permfesion -~-'- to ~STP.~~ISH 31N OUTda00R RECREATIONAL VE~fICLE STORAGE YARD 'aTTH -''.~IVEFtS OF (A! REQU~YtED 6-FOC~T HIGII MASONRY W1~LL, (g) M]:NIMUM PARKING, AND {C1 p~itMTTTED FREE-STANqING SIGN LOCATION on proparty describ~d asc A rectan~~ular.J.y--r~haped parcel of land consi3ting of Approxi- mately _ 3S acre, having a frr~ntage ~f appraximateZy 100 fea~ on ttie west side of Claudina Street, having a maximum depth of approximat.ely 155 feet, ar~d b~- ing 1~~-ated approximatbly i85 feet north of the cent~~rl~n~ of SarAta 11z~a Street, an~i f~.~rther descrii~ed as 411-e,15 Soui.h Claudi.na Street. Property presently classif ied M-1, LIGH'P :NDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Upon quAati~ning of Chaa.rman Gauer, no one indi.cated thei-- presence i.n op~osition t~o subject petition. Althoug:s the Statf Rep~rt to the Commissian dated 3etnusr1 21, 1974 was not read at the public hearinq, it i, refsrred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Y~eonard G. Smith, thz petitioner, apnearEd before the Commissfon and stated the Staff ReT~or~ w~s self-explan~cory and that he w~s available to answer an~~ questians of the Con~mission. Upon ~uestioning of Ch,~ i.r.man Gauer, Mr. Smith atated the fences presently eurrounding rhe sub ject propezty wauld be replac~c~ 3u~ to the fact thez~ ~rere large holes in the fence from the ~rucks backing away from the icehouse on the adj acent pr.opurty; that. ~he whole fence wou~ d need to be remove~i in order for the subjeGt property ~to be paved properly; and that the fer.cing would be chainlir.k to provide vi~ibility. Upon Cueationing af Commissioner King, Mr. Smith stated tha~ a 5-foot planted ~.Yaa. would be grovided between the psoperty line and tr~e cu:b. Mr. Sr~ith ~urthex atatecl that Staff had c>>ntacte~ him rPgardi-,y txash pick--up Qince it was noL- indicated on ':.he pian; that tie w,ia w`.1J iny to pxovide a trash ~ torage ai ea and he haci talked to the owner of a similar faGility and a tras-_z collec~i.on area covld h~~ el~minated ~y includi~ng i.n the Contract for the usP of the fac~lity that recreational ~hic~.es wauld not bs allowed t-.a i~ring ~oodstuffs tsnd trash on.to t~~e ~~remise5t ~hat s~me ~upervisian woulc be requirPd to :eep the facility clean; that a~.'•hough he would be wil~ing to F~zov•lde a trash storage area, he would ratre.: not bn compelled ~o do sn; and that th~ ~aci~ity woula r.e Qperat.ed ~n a kex setup. ~ MZNqTCS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, ,,Tanuary 21, 1.9? ~ 74~53 CONDITIUNAL USE P~RM IT N0. _1_449 (Continued) Upon qu~stioninq of Commi.esioner King, Mr. Smitt~ stipulated that in tlu~ evan~ the bu~lding ~buttin~ thA north prnper~y lino was dQmoliehecl at a Puture t.ime, a solid mesan.ry wa1Y caul d bQ conetructad to ecreen th~ aub joct property si.. thnt norCh~r] y bc~undary . Mr, W17.Ifem Goll i nAworth app~eared bHforo the Commi~ai~n and stated Yze a~~ ~ed tl~e property ~croea th~ straot f.rom sub ject propertyr that fc.- years he t~ad been collecting ell ~P~o trash that hud beer~ bi~wn frcm the sub ject- a.roa towar~la hie proper.ty end he wets tirQd of having to do eot that he wae aware of tht corid:ltions lo ft by rc~crQatianal vehic~~ own~rs and h~: was not about to p.ick ap ~.hoir trashr that in additinn, he was tired of the icohouse uei,ng Claudina Street ae a yard und atorage yardt tllat he was also tirecl oP the littor., the gar.baqe and the trnsh in tr tre~. upan questioTiing o~ Commissianer. Kiny, Mr. Cc-llinswor th further stated .-. ~ the packuging m terial fr~m the pi~inq ttiat wAS pXeviously s~ored on the sub ject t>>~operty '~lew down ~ho street and ha als~ had be~n Cickin~ that up= that he would no•t m: nd having the recz-ea- tional vetzi.cl~ s~torago use provided ~.t was encloaed withir. -. block wallj that regarding p~rking, during the summer when the icehouse was busy, th~ etr~ets di ~i nut have any spac~ left for parking or for pasainq through the ar ~at that in rolationship to the sub jgct use, the previoua use was objectionablo and h~ did nat feel the propose~l u~e would be better. ~~mmias~oner fierbat inqt ired if Mr. Goilinsworth had viewed the ~T-o-ject at Lemon and Srxnta Ana StreQta, thr.t was fenc.~d and landscaped, as that facility was eimil.gr to tht~t be~.ng gropased, and Mz•. Collina~•rorth indicated he had observe3 that ai.te and the st~rec3 vehicles were completely visible. Mr. Cn~linsiaorth inquired why the pr~posed use was permitted in ttie axe~., as the ather propartiee on thati st,de u~ Clau~~ina Street were ~uuneu R-3, and SLaff adviasd that sub ject ~rop~rty was rozoned ~o M-1 under Reclassificti tion No. 57-58-8 and thc: records wou].d need to bc: reviewed ror the reasons for the xealas~sificatian. Mr. Collinsworth indicated concern regdrding the amour-t of pa~:king tha~ w~ulci be n~eded For the proposed use~ and Conanis~ionFr King noted th«t he had vis.ited the facility at Lem~n and Santa Ana Str~ets over a weekend and he had observed nm m~re than two cara ~t uno time parked or~ the stxeet. Commissioner King further noted that he could not underntan@ why Mr. Co113.ns- wortlz did nat want t!~e prvposed use on tliz subject prouerty in place of what preacn~ly exiated there; and ~hat, xn his opinion, there would be no li.tter blowing from the sub jec~: propeXty. Mr. Collin~worrh fu~4:her inquired concer-lir,g disposition Af thA tr~3cks belong- ing to the iaehouse apsration, and Commissioner Herbst advised that if there was illegal parl:ing on the ~trects by the icehouse tr.ucks, that the Police D~partment should be contacted to resolve tha~ matter. `CHE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CI~OSED. Mr. Smith stated he agr~ed tnPre was a parking problem ~n regard ta the icehouse trucks, dnd that as a result of ±he trucks backing up over the curb, his water meter ~vas presently damaged, however, h~ did not beli.eve he could du anything about it. Ha f.urttzer stated he would like to have the tr~sh storage area requireme-it waived . Co:-unissioner Herbst explairied that s~nce a conai+-=nnal us~ permit xan wxth the ~az~cl, the trash storage area was very necessary and~ th.ereupon, Mr . 5mith stipu- 1at~:d to praviding the necessary trash stc+rage are~s. Upon questioning of Commiss .oner K:.ng, Mr. Smith stated he would be r,areful with t:he flocdlights on the subaect property and said the lights wauld be loca*.ed an tne north side so there wou].d be no danger of ~be floodllghts shiz- ing on the str+~ett tha~ he would ir, na way want to inatall redwood olats in the chainlink fenc::ng ~as this would reduce the visibility and he wanted ~he Police Depar.tment tc ae able to view into tl^.e facility as they drove by i t, for security purpases f that i£ the facil~ ty was completely r~cr~ened from view, t,he amount of inaurance purchased would have to ae inczeased considerably. ~ ~ MINUTRS, C:.TY PLANNI.VC CUMMISSI~N, J~anuary 21, 1974 74-54 CONDITtONW, US~ P~RMIT NO. lbA9 (Continued) f:ommisaioner Seymr,ur offerea r~ mctian, aaoonded by Commie~aionar i:ing ancl MO'Y'ION CARRIED (Commiss.ionar k'axana boing ab~Qnt) th;~t the PlannJ.ng ~ornmif~~+ion, in c~nnocti.an with an exemption ~~nclarntion atatue raqueek, ~in8s a~nd determinos that the proposal wc~uld have no signi?icant environmantal impact and, th~r.e- ~ore, xecommendr~ to the Cit;~ CorinCil that no Lnvironmon~al Impact Statement ia neceaeary. Coxnmies.ioc~or K~~g ffered Reso ~i'.:.ion No . QC74-22 an~1 mavQd fc,r ite passage and ado~tion to grant Petition fcr Con3lt~.una1 Use Permit No. 1449 ~ granL-ln3 Waivers a and b on thQ baeis that the petit,ioner demonetrated ~. har~lahip rolating to adequdtn E~nlice pro~tectton ot the proposed use wou7.d be created if view-screNning w~s provio.ed and f.urther that the supject pronerty ie locat~,d in a trr~nsitional areaJ 'tl~at Wuiver c is granted on the baeis ~that the propa~od use would nat re- quire off--~treet customer parking and saia tt:s~ would bc within the i.ntent oE the ~riginal M-1 dc~ed restricti~ha far subj~ct pr~~pextyt and granting Waiver d on kho basis that ~h~ petitioner demonstrated a hardship wau~d be created if aaid waiver was noc granted based on the pl.ar~s, as 9~bmittadt anfl that the~ petitioner eti.pulake~l t~ erecting a fez-c~ 31.ang the northerly si~1r of subject proper.ty abut~ing the R-~ parcc:l in th~ ~vent tlie f.xiating building l.ocated ~n the adja- cent It-~:.' parcel and on ~aid propsrty line is de~moliahedt and a:ib~ect t~ co~~di- tione. (See Resoluti.un B~ok) Or. r.o11 call tre ~oregoing rnaolution was passe~d by th~ followinq vote: AYE6: ~:OMMISSICNF~RS: Herust, King, Seymour, Gauer. NOES : CAMM~ S S IONE RS : None . A~3SENT: (:OMMIS~"tONPr~ s Far.ano. AMENDMENT TO TITI,E 18, - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING ANe~HEIM MUNICIPAL CODE COMMI5SIOt~, 204 E~st Liricoln Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92805; <: consi.der amenc~ment to Title 1.8, Anaheim Municipal ~;od~, lepealing Chaptar 18.84, "3uildi.ng Line Setbacks". Assistant nevelopment S~arvices Director Rcnald Thompson t~resented the Staff Report to rhe Commiasi~n dated January 21, 1974, and said Staff Repart is ref~rred to as if set forth in full in t1 minutea. THE FUBLIC HEARING WA~ CLOSED. Cammissi~nE.r X:ing offered Resolu*.ion Na. PC7A-19 and moved for its ~,assage and adoption tc~ adopt 311C1 recommEnd to the City (:ouncil adoptian af an amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code, ~itle 18, Zoninq, repealing Cha~ter 18.84, "Bui~.d. ;~g Line Setbacks" i~n its entir.ety. (See Resolution Book) Gn roll call the forego~.ng resolutian was p~ssed by thc following vote: AYES : COMMISSIONF.RS : Herbst, King, S~ymour, Gauar . NOES : COMMI S S IONERS ~ None . ABSEiVT: COMMISSIQNERS : Farano. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CTTY PLANNTNG CQMMISSION~ January 21, 1974 74-5~ RP~PORT~ 11ND - ]:TEM N0. 1 RE;COMM~tinATIONS C~:~~~~ US~ PERMIT N0. 1131 - Request Yor '-" -'" ~c~rminati~~n - Property located nn thn nor*_hoast cornor af Br~aaway and Loara Stra~t. It was notod t~hat Conditional L'se Permit No, 1131 was grant3d in Reealution No. PCG9-215 on Octaber 3Q, I.969, to permit AtoragQ ~f' buildinq material on M-1 zoned propertyt and tt-~t on September 5, 1973, Variancae No. 2546 w~a grant~d ta establi.sh a at~rage yard for new ~utamUb,il.es and recreat~.~nal vehicl~s and a bil]boux~d on aubjoct property, subject to the con3li:ion that iF ea:ld Varianc~ No. 2546 was acceptable to t~e r,ew tena;~t, tha getitioner would requ~st t~ermination oE Canditiona: U~~ Permit Na. ].'131. r^urther, that the petitioner was requesting termi.nation of all pr~ceed.i.ng~ ~' Condi- tional Use Pern~it No. ~131 since the now tenant had consented ~o -.cept Variance No. 2546 and di.d not tntend to exercise the use gxan ed Y,y the Condi~ional Us~ Permitt and ~hat Staff, +:heref4re, would recoinmQnd that. VariancP No. 2546 be terminated. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolutl.on No. PC74-23 and moved for i.ts passage and adoption t~ terminate aZl procesdings of Conr7itional Use Per.mit No. 1131, as request~d by the peti~io~:er. (See Rc~solut.i.on Baok) pz~ roll call the fureyoir.g resolution was pat~sed by the fol.lowiny vot~: AYES: CQMMISSIONERS: HFrbst, King, Ssymour, Gauer. NOES: COMMISSION~.RS: Non~•- AASENT: COI+1MISaIONERS : Farano. ~TEH N0. 2 RECLASSIFICATIOIJ N.'. 71-72-21 AND VAFIANCL•; N0. 2310 - Requegt f.~r approv~:l of. site ~lans anci elevations - Property located appror.imately 3E5 fe~t ~asc of Imperial Highway, having a fr~ntage of a~p~roximately 870 fset on the north side of Santa Ana Car.yon Road, and consisting of approximately 12 acres~ Assistant Zoning SuF~ervisar Phillip Sch~artze presented request for approval site plans and e?.e~ations in conn~cti~n with F.eclassifica•tion i~U. 71-72-21 and Variance Nu. 2310 f r subject property, and st;ated the petitioner had sub- mitted sii:e plans and elevations and these x•evised plans were in conformance with the original concept plans; however, said plans di~ not meet the norm.31 i:equ~.red standards for precise plans for devc:lopment. CommissionPr He.rbst noted for the Commisaion that Ci*_y Council app~,~va1 of subject petitions w~s based on ~ 3ifferent plan L•b~n was suhmitteci to the Planning Conmiis~ion and he inquli~ed into the status of that pr.operty which was omitted. Mr. Harxy Rinker appeared before the Comn~ission and ~tate3 the referenced piece of proper'-y was in the title of the State Divisior. of Highways as it was at the time of City Council approval; tYiat as s~on as thP plot plan could be approved, the easement whicti wauld be giv~n through the subject property to the referencedpiece of. praperty wou13 be recorded bY the State and affered for sale; that they would be tY~e most l.agical purchasers and he was satisfied that they would purchase it; that the access to that property ~voul~i be through the subject property utilizing the easement tk~at was grante~l by the Ci~y C:ouncil ar-d approved by the City Attorney's office; and tha~ the purpose of :heix presence at this meeting was to request approval nf precise plans which was a requirement of t;ondition T' 13 ~f Reclassification Nc. 71-72--21. Upan further questiuning of Commi.ssioner He.rbst, Mr. Rinker sta.*.ed the proposed serviue station wauld be :.ntegrated with the shopping center and would be a por*ian of said shopping center; that the service station k~ould not have direct access fram the street and would be approached from the shoppinq center, and w~uld nat have ~he usual exposure; that as a 3rawing mechaniam, and for no other intent, the property was se~arated into two parcels and the sertrice station had been divideZ off for leasing and propor~ional parking purposes; that there cvas a berm or. the landscape. pl n; and that the service ~t~tion building was designed ~~ correspond with ~a~ design af the shopping center 3tself. ~ ~ MINUTFG, CITY PLANNIrIG COMMISSION, Janu~ry 21, 1974 74-~6 ITEM N0. 2 (c:nnti.nued) Asei.etant Znntng ~uperviaor PhiliiQ Schwartze nar.ed for 1:h~ Com~aieeion that Staff wr~s ra-emph~ eizing that the plana being reviewcsd were r.c~w concept plans, t1ia~ did not conform to the normal requi.remantH for prC:C~.yP plan~ and i~ wne euqqeeted tha~ the Planning Commission continue to r~quixe pr.~aise pl.ans~ and that, as indic~~Qd in i:he St.aff n~port, there wera una~~awered que~s~iona and p~asible pr.ob.:ems with relatior~ to ~~~~ Scc:nic Corridor (°C) Overle~X 2ane. :~ir. Rlnkae a~ated he had met with ~ta~f on three ocaasions, two of which wc~cc~ in the pre,sence o:£ the Cit.y Attorney with regard to wh~t wa~ required as px~aise p1~ns~ ttiat it was City Attorney Alan Watts an9 Planning S,~nervis~~r Don McDaniel~s opinion that working 3raw~nge were no~. requirod to omp7.y with the refer~nced Condition No. ~.3 as to precise plansp that in his o~inion, wor ing dtawings meant there wEre sto.res ready to approvc~ and buil ; that a~~cording t~ Mr. Mcb~anj.el, the Planning Staff was i.ntexc~sted in se ~in~g whak the buildings would look lik~ frorn tlza outside, as well as the me~surementa anc' building materir~ls, etc. , and informati~n wss c~nta.ined ir~ th~ t~pecifi- cations which had been submitted to th4 designated Plnnning Staff mamber= and that they ~vere willing to furnish any additional information upon xequest. C~mmisyionPr Seymour referrPd t~ the r>'ans beinc~ submiti:eu and queationQd whdther the plans which wer.e approved uy the Ci.ty Council showed ti~e sPrvice station aa not integratPd, and Mr. Rinker stated hie archj.tect had drawn some lines on the plans which were {n fxon~ of the Commission at this time which were misleading and confu~ing and that th~ lines would have to do witl~ the sweeping ~£ the shopping center, h~~wover, the eervice station would be cam- pletely integrated. Upon rurther questioning, Mr. Rinker advised that City Staff. had t~.ken the positiun that the p' ~s being c~ubmitted were not suf.ficient plans. Mr. Rinker srated hE would be willing to accept Planni.ng Commissi.on approval of the subm~.tted plans, svbject to approval of. Mr. Watts and Mr. MaDan.i~l. Ccmmissioner Seymour offered a motion, seconded by ~ammiasioner Herbst and NlOTION CARR.IED (Com,~niasi~nex Farano being absent) that the site plans and elevations, a5 submitted, were determined to be in substantial conformance wit.h the origi.~lal concept plans, however, preci.se plans for the subject develo~mNnt were jtill required. Mr. Riz~ker stated he was trying ~a conforlu to Condition No. ~.3 :~f approval of Reclassif-ication No. 7].-72-21 which read "Pxior to the ll~troduction of an ~rdinance rezoning subject prc~~erty, Condition Nos. 1, 2. 3, 11 and 12, ~bove- ment~iuned, sh~ll b~ completed. The provisions or rightg granted b•~ tnis .resolution shall b~come null and void by action of the City Counci:. unless the conditions are complied wi-th within twa years from L-he aate hereof, or such furthPr time ~s the City Council may grant"; that the two years woulcl ex~ir.e on April 11, 1974, and that was why 'tney were pushing for approval at this time. • Conunissioner Herbst entered inta discussion with Mr. Rinker on :he matter of the land H~rich might become avaiZable frum i:he S~ate .oivision nf HighF~l1s and Mr. Rinker advised that subject pr.operty was c~ntained in the conc~itior:; and was approved by the Director of Public Works. ZaEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL i1SE PERMIT NO. 1359 - Reque3t for extension of time - Property located at the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and FrQedman Way. It was noted that Condition.al Use Permit No. 1359 was appraved. by the Planning Commisaion on January 4, 1973, subject to conditions; th~t ~ondition No. 12 of Resolution No. PC72-329 specified that certain conditions be me± prior t~ the iasuance of. building pErmit~ or within one year, whichever oc~ur•:ed first; that no previ.ous extensions of time had been granted on subj~ct conditional use permit; and that Staff v~ould r.ecommend a ane-year axtension of time be gran~ed, as requested k,y the petitioner. • ~ ~ MINITI'ES, CIT~ PLAIVNTN~ CQb1MI ~SION, .Tdriuar,y 21, 1974 ~~~~7 2TEM N0. 3 (Continued) Commi.esioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commiaeionex Sa~ymoux ~nd MUTION CARR.IED (CottaniseJ.oner Farr~no beiny at~K~nt) to qrant n ont~-year axtension of ti.me £or Conditi~nal Use Permi.t ~~o. 1359 to oxpire January 4, 197~, as iequested by ~he petiti4ner. ITEM N0. 4 ADOPT N dF AMEI~IDM~NT TO RESOLUTIQNS r NUNC PRO T(TNC, IN CONNECTIOI~ WITH KATHRYN-LINUSAX ANNEXATION. Aseistaaa~ Z~ning Supervisor Phi.].7.ip Schwartze natc.a for thc~ Commissi.on ~hat the legal deacrip~ions contpined i.n certai.n r~8olutiona approviny rc~classificati.ons within the ICathryn-Lindsay Annexation were inaorrect b;. virtu~ of cleri.cal error, and that i~ would be in order for the Commiss~oi ~~ amend sa~d resolu- tions, nunc pro tunc. Cammissioner tCing oEfered l:esolixtion No. PC7~1-24, amRnding Itesolution No. PC73-t86, nunc nro tunc, which approvecl Reclassif~.cation No. 73-74~15, t~o so~ fortti ~^ amer,3~d legal description. (See Resol~a~ion Book) Or~ roll call the f~r~goir~g resolution was passed by the following vote: A~~Eg; COMMISSTONERS: Herbat, P.ing, Seymour, Gauer. NOES: CUMMISSIO'~ERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISS:ic~NEF<S : Faz~no. Commissioner King offered Reso ~ion No. PC'1a-25, amending Reao~.ution No. ,?C7~-225, nun~~ pro tunc, which ap~roved Reclassitic;ati~n No. 73~~4-1, t-o ~et forth an amende~i legal descriptior,. (See Reaolutioie Book) On ro11 call the foregoing resolution wag ~~asaecl by the followiitg voLe: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: [~erbsc, Ring, :.3ymour, G~uer. NOES: C~OMMISSION~RS: IJone. ABSENT: COMMYSSIONERu: Farano. Commissiont~ King offerecl Resu'ution No. PC74-26, amending Resolution No. p~7~-226, nun: pro tunc, which approved RPclassific:ation No. 73-'14-9, tu set forth an amended legal description. (See Resolution Book~ On Loll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vate: AYFS: COMM?SSIONERS: Herbst, King, Seymour, Gauer. NOES: COMMTSSIONERS: None. At3SENT: COMMISS'LONFRS: F3rano. AD,TOUFNMENT - There being n~ £urther busines~ to discuss, Comr,~issianer - Seymour ~-ffered a motion, s~cnnded by Cammissic~ner King and MOTTON CARRIEll, to ~djoiirn the meeting. ~he meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. RespectfuLly submitted~ ,~~,~,,i~~ .,~~,,~~,~ Patricia B. Scanlan, Secretary Anaheim City Planninc; C~mmission PBS:hm