The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1974/02/200 k C 0 MICROFILMING SERYICE, INC. . ,,, . ,,.,~ ., ,, , , , , , ~ , ~ ~ C~.t,y Ha~l Anaheim, Cmliforni~ Fobruaryr 20, 1~ !4 REGULAl2 AD~AURNED MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN(3 CqMMISSION ~tEGULAR -~ A re+gular adjournod meating of the Andhoim City Plunniny MEETING Commieeion was calle~ to order by Chairman Gauer at 2:00 p,m., a quorum k~eing presant. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Guuer. - COMMISSIONERS: Compton, Farano, Harbat, J~hnson, King, Morley. AAuENT - COMMIS:~IONERS: N~ne. p~t,SO ~~FtESEiJT - Aeaistant ll~velopment Servicos Dir.sctor: Ronald Thompoon Deputy City At~orney: Frank I,owry Office Enqineer: Jay Titus Zoning Supervisor: Charlas Rob~rts Assistanl: Zoning Supe.rvisor: Phil~ip Srhwart:.e Commission 5e~:retary: Patri.ci~+ ScaiilAn PLED~E OF - Commi.sHioner ~7otinson ~.ed in the Pledge of Allegiance to the ALI~EGIANCE Flag of the United States of Ameri.cA. APPROVAL OF - Cammissioner King offered a motiori, seconded by Commi~sioner THE MINUTES Farano and MQ~'ION CARRIED, to apprave the minute$ of the mee~t- i.ngs of l~ecember 27, 1973 and January 7, 1974~ aa submitted. PLANNING COMMI5SION WORK - Chairman Gauer anriaunced that a letter had been SESSION-FLBRwA~tY 25, 1974 received from AnAheim Hills, Inc. requeating the Planning Commission ta meet on Februnry 25, 1974, i.n a w~rk aesafon ta review their proposed expan- sion of the Pl~nned Community Zone in Anaheim Hi11s, The Planning Commissioners genera].ly concurred fo hold a wArk sessior. on Februar.y 25, 1974, a~ 6:30 p.m. in Anaheim Hills, and thaC any Comm+.ssioner wh~ so desired could visit the property earlier in the day. F,MENDMENTS TO 'rITLE 18, - PUBLIC HEARING. INTTIATED BY THE ANAH~IM CITY ANAHEIM NII.TNICIPAL CODE PLANNIN~ COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, - Anaheim, Ca. 9280~f to conaider ar.ienclment~ to Title 18 of the Anaheim ~dunicxpal Code, Chapter 18.62 - Siqns~ Advertising Signs and Structures, Sections 18.62.U30 - De`initions; 18.62.(150 - Multiple-Family kesidenti~l Zones, Permitted Signs; ~8.62.0908 - Free-S~anding Signsj aiid 18.62.090J - Monum~nt Sign~. Sub~ect ~unendments ~rere conti~nued f.rom the meeting of February 4, 1974, for furthex clarificati~on. Assist~ant Zoning Supervis~r Fhillip Bchwartze not~c~ that Staff was requesting an additlonal twa-week continuance of the proposed amendments for fuzther study. Commisai~r-er Herbst. of:Eered a motion, se~onded by Commissioner Compton and MOTION CARI2IED, to further continue the ~ublic hearing for conaiderati.on of subject amendments to the Co@e ta the m~eeting o£ Maruh 4, 1974, as requested by Staff. 74-83 a ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C0:~1~MI9~T~~N, f'obruar.y 20, 1974 %4-84 ENVIRONMFNTAL IMPACT - CUN~'IN~J~"D PUDLIC HEARING. ~OAN II~RRY ~ FT RI., 1028?. It~PO1ZT Nc.~. 9y Wo~ley Circl.e, Nuntitigta;, B~,aah, Ca. 926A6, Ownerr '""" '~ WII,LIAM H. MILLER~ 9732 E~azard Avenue, Sar.ta Ana, Cr~, ttECt,AS ~IF:[CATTON 92703, Agont= requostinq thak proparty clescribAd ma: N~. 73~74-2p A recrangularly-shapecl p~yrc:el oF land conai.sting of ' -"-" approximately 4.~ ~crea at the 3c~uthweet cor.ner Af Crescent Avenue a-~d Magnolia Avonue, having approx.imate frontagas of fi30 feeC on th~ ~~uth sicle of. Crescent AvQnue e.nd 306 fc~et on the wesr c~ide Uf Magnoli.a Avenue be r~olASSified from the R-A, AGP.ICULTURAL, ZONE to t.he C-1, G~N~FtJ~L COMM~:RCIALr xONE. 5ubject petition wae c~ntinu~d f.rom L•lie rneeting of ,7Rnuar~- 21, 1974, at t.hP request of the petltioner. Approximately aight porsona indicated their. presence in oppasition to aubject pPtition. As~istant Zoning Super.visor Phillip Schwartze read the Staf.f Report to the Commission d~ted Fabruary 20, 1974, and ~aid Staf~ Raport is referred to aa if s~c icr~-h in full in ~he minutea. tIe noted that ravised plans had been submitte3 which ir~3icated a bank would be deve~opAC~ inatead of the propos~d ~uture develapment ~f a resLaurantJ that a Viinchell's Donut Stiop had been deletedj that five addition~l paxking spaceo were indicated on the rev~sed plans, which wao four apace~ ovor and ab~ve the roquirement~ that a 20-foot wide ~~lanted strip was indicated on the revised plans adjacent ta the westQrly prepezty line; and th~t one o£ the two freE-atanding signs was deleted in the reviaed plans. Mr. W~:I.liam H. Mill.er, 9732 Hazard Auenue, Santa Ana, appeared befoze the Cammission ~nd stated the City Council had requested i:hat they bring in re- vi.s~d plans for Cocnmit~sion cpnsideration and to work with ~he Staff, which they had done; ti~.xt the revised plans reflected the comments made in the Staff Roport; and if there were ~ny tecY~nical questions, th~ architect was at ~the meeting to answ~r them. Mr. Juhn Peek, 2625 West Baylor Cirale, Apartment 246, Anaheim, appeared befor_e the Commission in opposition and stated he did not necessArily represent all of tre people and there were probably 1500 to 2000 people in oppo~sitiion who were not pr~aent; that k~e was a citizen and had written to the City Council on Decembcr 14, 1973, and, thereupon, Mr. Feek read said ].etter which suggested alternate use~ for thE subject property to incl.ude a re~reational center fox th~ west end of the City, or~e-stary apartr~~ent buildings which would not ir.- crease school enrol]ment in the area. or two-sto.:y apartment buildings not to exceed 125 units. The let~er further indicated ~hat a shopping center would not be in the best interest of the communityf that Peter Marshall Llementary School, with 600 children in attendance, was located directly across the street; that noise was projected in the Environmental Impact Report which was in viola- tion of accepted standards; that the area was d~~eloped with hiqh density to the soutY~ and countless homes would k~e affPctedj that the proposed development would establish precedents which might affect every residential area in the City; that every densely populated country on earth was headed toward destruc- tion; that he did feel the City of Anaheim was a fine city and, with conL-inued good guidance, could only improve. Mr. Peek then stated that the recent Anaheim Newsletter survey indicatec~ about 14~ of the Ci~y's population thought the major problem in the City was grawth siid overcrowding; that 37.$ of the City's population indicated thai: the No. 1 nuisance in the City wae cars and motorcycley; tha~ already having groblems and nuisances, the City should not aJ.low inccrrect d~s:ign but should be sensitiv~ and look at each development individaally, with common sense, and not "jam" commercial develapment into residential areas. Mr. Kenneth Klotz, 30U South Harbor Baule~vard, Anaheim, appeared befnra the Commissian and stated he was an attornsy in Ar~aheim and had been working with a num}~er of the residents in the ~rea regarding the subject development; that , as he understood the changes to the s~lt~ject development since it was first ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Fab~uazy 20, 1974 74-85 ENVJRONMENTAL YMPACT TtEPURT N0. 99 ANG ItECL113~IFI__.____CATw,T.(,~N NO• 73-74-20 (Cont'd heard by thQ P].anning Commiosi.on, thpy wbro minort that th~ real reaeon for can.:arn had not b~en due to the propoea~l having a restaur~nt et thie location, but bec;~use it wae a cdmmer.ci~l develo~mAnt r~ght in Che heazt of a ras3.dential ~rea and next to the schoolt thut the communi..ty had s~ate~ thoir feelinga an the mat•tex•1 that on the ft.rs~ hearing dat~, a petikian vith approximately 250 ~iynatnree had boon aubmitted ~£ thase ppople in the ~'anediate area in opposi- tion: ~hat he was filing an additional petition with epproximately 400 aiqna- turos i.n opposition~ thz-t the Magnolia School piatrict Hoe~.rc] had paesecl a r.esolutioii which waa sent to the Planning Commi.eefon, disepp.roving of the proposed develo~ment, not becauae of the reetaurant, but becaueca of the commer- cial devdlopment adsacent to the achao~; tha.t Mr. Stineon, Frincipal of the ~chool, had a~.9o diedppxoved ~f the propoealt th~t in adc~itirn, the local PTA had submitted a lattor axpressi.ng their unanimous disapproval of thQ sub;ject: pet.itianJ and that all of ttio resolutions and lattera had been roquested to be made a part of the xec~.rd. Mr. Klo~z continuad by atat~.ing that ~..he proposa], had be,en unanimously rejECted by the communi.ty and the basic reason was that theze wae no showing by the d~veloper as to the need to change the mak.~up of the areat that he thouqht basically when a developer came in and wanted to go againet the General Plan, that they should make some presentation as to what po3sible bcanefit such a develapment would have to the City or at least ~o the par1: af the City in which the development was pr.oposed te be conatructadi that the s~bj~ct proposal would generate noise, odur~, and especially traffic and ~~ould set a terrible prece- clsnt if allowc~d to be located next to a achool ar~ againat the Ganeral Plan; thr~.t concerning tra£fia, because of the traf°.~c flow pattern the parents must drop thefr children off ar pi.ck them up often~times on the opposite side ~~f the street fram the ~rhool and the children had to crosa thc street in a~angerous manner. Upon inqLiry of Chair.man Gauer as to whether the petitio er wished tu rebut the statements of the opponents, Mr. Miii~r stated he understood the reason he was pr.esent was ~o have the revised plans reviewed and he was not prepared .for any rebuttals; that he was ready to go to the City Council; that since it was his understanding from City Staff tha~. this war:s not to be a public hearing, the matter had became complicated since he had exhibit~ and documex~ts else- where to defend his posi`.ion. Commissioner Farano noted for the petita.oner that there was lit~le or no shnv~- inq or ju~ti.fication for a change in the zoning of su~ject property; that at thi.s time if the ~etitione~ had done some research that would calaulate to justify a zoning change or to show that other conditlons existed that would justify a zone change, tie would be happy to give the petitioner additional time . Mr. Mi11er stated he just wanted ~a yo `o the City Cou:ic.il wi~h the proposal. The Commission SeGretary read a latter which was received from Richard Herbe'rt Royston, 2668 West Baylor Avenue, Anahe::m, in favor of develuping the subject property. THE PULLIC HEARING WA5 CLOSED. Deputy City ttorney Frank 'Lowry advised that should the Planning Commission act favorably on subjpct petitian, becau~e of an amendmen't to the State Code effective January 1974, a General Plan Amendment would be required to be processed on the property in order t~ bring it into conformanc~ with the Anaheim General Plan. Zoning Supervisor Charles Rob~rts adv~ised as a matt~r of clarificatic~n. that it was obvious to the Staff that the subject petition would require further public hearing and that on ~Tanuary 21, 1974, the petitioner had requested a continuance in order to pre~oare for a public hearing= and that from the Staff°s viewpoint, it was perfectly clear all along that this meeting was to have a public hearing on the aubjec!: petition. ~ • MINUTES, C1TY PI~ANNXNG COMMISSION, Febru~ry 20, 1974 74-86 FNViRONMENTAL~ IMPACT REpORT N0.,99 ANO RECLASBIFICA~IO~ N0. 73-74-20 (Cont'd.) Zri reply ta questioning by Gommfsai.on~+r Herbet, Mr. Lawry advided that Environ~- mental Imp~c~~ ~t.apcrt N~. 99 which wee~ coneidorQC9 b~~ the Planning CommiASion on 5optember ].7, 1973, hr~c~ not been amanded or changed and tha-t a recornmendation had baan made to adopt s~id Environmental Impact Roport under the ald ~uide- lineA and that t~etion would etanc~. Commissioner Herbet offoxed Resolution No. PC~7~!-37 and moved for ita paosage and adoption ta recommend to the City Couiici]. ~hat Petition for Reclaoaifica- ti.on N~. '13-7A-20 be dicaapproved c+n the basis that the r~vised plana indicAted little or no change irom the original. plans as pr.oaented on September 17, 1973, with th~ axception k}ir~t a 2~-foot ~uffer strip was sh~~rn ~etween the subject pro~,e.rty an~ the ad;oining resir~ential ugeat that the naise generat~d by the delivery trucka and the unusual. hours of ~per.ation, which would probably extond ~o midnight, would have an adverse effect on. the ad~ioi.ning residential prQ~er- tie~ and would ba d9trime:ntal to the p~ace, h~~1th, satetl~ unei general we?~are of the citizens ~f th~ City of Anaheim= tha~ ~he propoaed reclassification of. subject property would create a heAlth and safety hazard to tha area and particularly ta the gchool childx'en who wauld paea this property daily; and the Traffic ~nginesr had ast.imated mn increase of from 4000 ~o ~000 v~hiclea per day a't this locatf.an if the p•ropoeed aommercial uae wds r~tablished. {S~ee Res~lution Book) (;ommisaioner Compton noted, as a naw Commisaionor, that he did not underatana Mr.. M111~r's attitude and that he certainly waul.d lilce to ~hink that he had an open mind and tf anyone was not wxlli.ng ~a clarify his positi~n or give additional inrormation, he could see no reason why he should vote to ~support a petition. Commissioner Faranu nc,ted that ther.e was some obligation on khe pa.rt oE the Planning Commiasia:: to accept ~snr~ require evidence as to the char-ge of the zone undex conaiddrationi that the C~nunission was not technical about it but had alwaya conducted a.tself in tihe best interest of a11 parL-ies; that the petitioner betorc the Commission at thia time had givPn the Planning Commiasion alasolutely no showtngs whatsoe~,-er arid had in no way f.ulfilled his ~bligation to the Commission to considei, his petition; that in spitz of rejected regc~.ests at this and prior hearings, the pe~.itioner had not seen fit to make such show- ings and to enlighten the Comma.asion. On roll call, the foreg;~ing resolution was passed by the foll~wing vote: AYF~: COMMIS5IONERS: Compt~n, Farano, Herbst, Jchnr~on, King, M~rley, Gauer. NOES: COMMTSSIONERS: Nor.Q. ABSFNT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ .~ ~ MINUT~S, C7TY PLa1NN7:NG CUMMISSTON, T'ebruar.y 20, 1979 74-87 CONDIT'~~N~1L USE - PUSLIC tiE~1RING. ANAHEIM PROPERTIFS, INC., 8383 Wilehire PEIZMIT i~u. 145a 8uulevard, Suite 903~ Bev~+rly Hills, Ca. 90211, Ownerj SUPERIOR FAST FItEI~'HT, 611 North Mie~ion Rc~nd, $ox GO100-TA, Los Ange~ee, Ca. 9~06Q AND MOG TRUC,KING, 1222 E~et HoWe11 Avenue, Ana~.eim, Ca. 928U6, Agontai rea+.;~eting pex~mie~eion to ESTAALISH TWU TRANSPOItTATAODI TERMINAT,S IN AN EX'LSTIP~G BUILDZN~ on prope~rty described ae : An irzegularly--~haped psrcei af land cor.eietinc~ oP Approximately 5.38 acree, havi.ng a Ercntage af approximatQly 154 L'ee.t on the south s~do of liowell pvs~nue, having a maximum de~th of t~pproximatsly 625 feet, ~and being 1nc:Ated approximately 1000 Pdet east of the centerline of Lewis S~reet. Pr4per~cy pre~~r.tly classified M-1, LIGHT INDUS~'RIAI~, LONE. No one appeared in opposltion to subject petition. Although tho Staft Report to the Planning Commissior~ datecl February 20, 1974, was not; read at thF: ~,ublic hearing, it ia refezred to and maa~ a part of the minutos. Mr.. Robert Potter, Vice President of Operations and Traffic for Superior Fast Fr.eight, the agent for the pe~~.tioner, a~ppeared befora the Commisaion and stated that the trucking operation was set up in a bui.l,dinq with appraximately 80,000 square feet cf space; tY~at Superior Fast ~'r~igh~ was renting approxi- mai:ely 20,000 square feet of thia space to be used at~ a satellite terminal, with the main terminal being located in Los Angelest tr-at the main purpaae of the oparation was to move products Erom 5outh~rn Califarnia to the ~tatQS of Oregon and Washington; tliat the,y had been in business for 35 years and had aerved Orange County for about nine yearsp that they were proposing to park 12 tractors at the subject location and use the offices for three of tlz~eir salesmen; that they had checked with their neighbor~ to see if thQre were any objections to the parkiny of the equipment in the area and received none; that they had statements frotn some of t.heir ctistomers such as Buzza, American Can, etc., requesting that the parking be continued in th~ area ainco their busi.ness had been so improved; that it was a requirement that thev have their equi.pment in the areat that by movi.ng th~ startinc~ point Ear. some of the3a~ drivers to Orange County, all of the £rea.ght would not be runninq out of ~~he Los Angeles terminal bu~ those drivers would have a starting point in Orar~~P County and would also end up at the end af the day closer to their homes; un~ that the ~atellite system was w~rkitig out and they would like to c~ntinue it. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS C.L~JSEA. Commissioner King stated he had visited rhe subject location and found there were no cars or junk p~r}ced there; ~hat the parking area was clean; and that 11 trucks were lined up and park~d in a very neat manner. It was noted that the Director ~f Developmei~t 5ervices had det~rmined that thE proposed activity fell witk~in the definition o~ Sectian 3.01, C1ass 1 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the Requireanents for an ~nvironmental Tmpact Report and is, therefore, categ~riaally exempt frc.~m the requirement to file an Environmental Impact Report. Commissioner King offered Re3olution No. PC7~-38 and moved for its passagA and adoption to grant Petitic~n for Cond,itiox~al Use Permi~ tdo. 1455, subject to the condii:ion that the suhject property shall be developed substantiall.~ in acrordance with the plans and s~ecifications on file with tiie City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoiny resolution was pasaed by the followi.ng vote: AYES: COMMIS,.:ION3~7R5: Compton, Faran~, Herbst, JoY:nson~ King, Morley, Gauer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMTSSIONEF2S: None. ~ ~ ~ IIIN~JTES, C:ITY PLANNING C:OMMT85IQN, T'eU. uury 20, 1974 74~88 VARIANCF. NO. 2.`a76 - PUHLIC HT:AItING. Pf{OwNtX CI,UB, c/o PAUl GunnAman, 1566 " ^" Dougl~a Road, Anohe~im, Ce~. 9280fi, Ownor~ r.equesting pex~missiari to EXP1-ND AN EXTSTING PRIVATL CLUH ~n ~r~pert.y doecxibed ae: 11n i..rragulr~rly-shaped pRXC~l af lAnd coneiH~.nq ~f appr.oxi- mately 6.0 Acren, having a frontAc~e of appr:oximatoly 337 Pnet. on the A99L eide uf Oouylas Rotic9, having a maximurt- depth ol. +~pproximately 675 ~e~et, and being loc8~ted uppr~ximataly 7A0 f.~et north Af the, cenker].ine at' Kn~ella Avenue. Qroporty ~r-~santly CZA88.~~~.f3C~ R-A, AGRICULTUitI~L, ~1ND M-1, LIGHT ZNDU9TRI:AJ., ZONES . Ane pAX'8011 indicated hig presence ~.n oppogition tn r~ubject petition. ?1s~istant ~oning ~uperviROr. ~'-~il].ip Schwartze read the Staff. Repor_t to tha Plnnning Commisaion ~at~d February 20, 1974, arid said Stmff Itoport ie re£erred t~ ac ~ f set forth i~~ ful ]. in t1iQ minutes. M.r. Paul Guru;~cnan, tLQ petitiuner, appeared br~fore the Commisaton and etated ~ the Phoenix Club was t- r.~n-profit Germun-American social c;lub and they werA proud to bQ ~.or.ntod in the Ci.ty of. Az~aheim; that tr-e C1ub had approaimataly 5000 rr.Qmbers who reaidod in I,os Angeles and Grange countiea a~n3 t.he Club wae the laz~gest German-American Club in 5out:hern CallforniaJ that manX peoplo came to the Club Fa~:ilities for picnic:s wliile others had simple ainnera, and that the restaurant had outgrown its capaci.ty and they were reque~ting to oxpand ik; that the present faci].itiea ir-cludecl a two-story building with a restaurant downstairs nnd mainly offices an3 meeti»q roome upstairs; and tnat the main purgose uf ex~andfng t~.he restaur.an~. was because they wanted t~ s~rve their mem~ar.s acid guests in .a mare efficient mann~r. 1Mr. Kennetil T~arngrover., 1400 D~uglas Ftoad, Anaheim, appeared before the Commis- sian in uppogition to subject petition, represQ*.tirig the mobilchame park that was located north of the subiect pruperty, and stateci thAt alttiough the Club was in the area beforp the mobilehome ~ark, t!~e park had received permiasion to apc~rate and had put in t.heir sidewalkE whils the Cl.ub had not done so tc date ev~n though '~ey were required to do ~ot that the existir-g parkir~g facil~ ities for ttie f:luo were about one-ter~th of k•hat was ne~9ed for t-he membershipp that on approxi.mately four niyhts a week, the cars were parked burnper-to-bumpe:r all along nouglas Road from Katella to Cerritos, in addi.tior~ to the parking ?.o•t~ being f.ull; that, in his opinion, this was not a private cl~ib and i.f a private club deserved stat~as frc,m the City, they should certainly h~ve rules to follow; that anyone could eat at the Phoenix Club and many of the peop'le i.n the ar~a ~tte tYtere; th~t the Club was c1o4Pd on Mondays and xuesdayst tha•~ if th~ Club was a non-proiit typP business, i,r~ey should not solicit for biisiness; that ha could eat there anyL.me; that the Club was a crowded plac:p; that hia biggest objectian was due i.o the parking; that the Club rented to anyone when they had an open date; that the City of. Anaheim had a noise ordinance and he had called the Police Department at leas~. 50 t~.mes over the past couple of yeare• that the rock-and-roZl concerta could be heard for five to eight bl.ocics away and as a result the mobilehome park had ]~st most of their tenants immediately aGjacPnt to the Club; that they did nat ~~jPCt to the noise up ~.~r~til 1C:00 p,m. but after that time the police had been ther~ and the police Department recor~s would shov~ what was going qn; that he had talked to ~the manager of the Club and the people fron~ the orchestras would n~t shut the music offj that the Police Dapartment was veiy careful since they were afraid of a riot; that also, w~ith the ac~ivity gaing on inside the Club, they seemed ta forget to tu~~n off the amplifiers in the back yard and although evaryone enjoyec~ si.nging from time to time, the re- suZtant nois~ on the loudsp~aker.s was something else; that when the Club had paxties, buses picked up groups of people from 1:00 to 2:00 a.m. and tl~e b~~ses warmPd up for about a half hour, making a lot of noise; that r~~where else in Anaheim could anyone have activi~i~s at 5:00 a.m.; that he nad talked with Mayor Dutton and the Mayor saw some of the problems; that, ir~ Mr. Barngrove'~ opinion, there was a wror,g r.ecommen~'ation in allowing the parking spaces the Club naw had; that if the Club was going to be succe~sful it would have to have more than the proposed number of additional parking soaces t that also there were over 300 cars parked ~n Douqlas Road and some parking i.n the mobilehome develop- ment by the patrons of the Club; zhat there were beer cans and whiskey bottles constantly litc.ering the areaj that ther~ was loud swearing and a lot of dririk- ing -~nd lovemaking in the garked cRrs; ~hat he was a~:are that the Phoenix Club objected to the mobilehome park and although the pPrk had some faulta ~lso~ he had attempted to clean tli~m up; that a friendly rE:l~tionship exisCed betweer, the park and the C1ubJ that the Club had absente~ ownArahip and about seven of the owners were presently in Germany; rhat when t!~e origin$1 application was .~.. ~ k1INU'~ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 20, 1974 ~A'~9 VARIAN~E; 1~0. 2576 (Gontinued) qranted, ~.he Club wa~ exQc~~ted ta bo a 1aw-nbi~ing argr~nization with appro~riate paxking fe~c~ i;~ i.ties, nonkrol os' noise, and becauae of the City ordindnco they should know they wern breaking it and thak by the P1Anning Commisnion kn~wing th is ~h~y might be abl.o to da something about thca preeent situati.on i.n the new addi.tion . In xebuttel, Mr. Gunneme~n akated thet ha cauld nat agrEe more with Mx. anrn- grover regarding the parking problem and f.or that reASOn they hed aaquired two morc acroa for pi~rking a year or tw~ ago, and 92 add~tiona]. spaces wou'_d be pravided i.n t!~e new additia~ij that thr~y wou].cl bo turning over more ].ena to pa~rki.ng to give a toLal number of approximately 480 parking e~a,cea l thnt al•- thaugh th~ membership was approximately 5000, na morQ than 1500 poople were in the~ fa~ili.ty a~ on~ Cimef that although tk~e parkirg spacea wore eaey to got in and out o£, tha peopla would ba loaking to find ttie ea~iest place to par}c, evan in front of a fire hydrant, dnd would also park in th~ streett thc+t he had nat heard ~hat the people conducte~d thAmselves in the pArking areae as Mr. Barngrover had indicated= that he did nc~t want ta oay the situation could not be improv~d but he did not believe it was as bad as wao being indicated; that thc~y would do ~verykhing in their power to get the ai~uation taken care of if it did erist~ ~hat rF•~arding the 10:00 p.m. curfew, whiah he wa~ aware of, the hcurs nf the Clua ~peration hacl FxceRde3 tha~ An some occasiona and the Police Gepartrnent had ~ome out and the situai:ion was corrected; aad that i•.hey would have no function after 10:00 p.m. at any time. THE ?UBLIC H~ARINC WAS CLOSE~. Upon qur.H~ioning by Commissioner HerY~st r~garding leasing to others by contract, Mr. G~.inneman stai:ed th6y did le~se by contracta and that th~y scredned ver~- clogely and anyune functioning after 10:00 p.m. was not allo~red to aome again. C'ocnmissioner Herbat noted that the petitioner had not demonstrt~ted a hxrdsY=ip existed for the variance; that l:e understood the iioncoriforming building but he questioned the hardohip concexning the minimum front setback with all tl:e land the Club had. Mr. Gunneman explained that the kitchen faci.lities which were located in the so~th portion of the mai:~ buildirig served the hall, as well as tYxe preaPnt restaurant; that thsy ha~i kicked their plar.s around to see how they could best bui'ld the addition, us~ng the pXesent kitcher facil.itizs; and thut if they were to locate the aad~.tion to t~e aouth, they w~uld not be able to use the same ~citchen facilities, Commissioner Herbst furtheY iioted for the petit•ioner that the rre~ ent uae wr~s in a nonconforming bu~ lding ar~d was a nonconforming use; that thE e was a lot of vacant land in that industirial area, and gr.anting the subjec~ ~etition would se~ a precedent ~or ~thers who wou].d want t:he same privilege in th~ a.rea= and that he would not vote for an encroacr.men't into the present setback. Mx. Gunneman stated they presently did not have sid~wal}:s t and t~at he would like to point aut that the m~bilehome park to the north had a setback of 10 f~et and under '•he same zoning as the subject Qroperty. Commissioner Herbst stated at the ti.me the mobiletiome park was sstabl.ished, the Planning Commi.asion and the City Council were not in favor of It there, however, it came ln under County zoningt that a mobilehome park wa~ 1ra interim use; and that Yie was not going to grant a privilege that ~rould continue to break down the induatrial inteuritv of the area. Mr. Gunneman stated thpy wauld go along with any condition enumerated in t2:e Staff Repozt inc'Luding the installation of sidewalka or an~~ othsr item the Commission would like them to provide. Commissioner Kinq noted that in conjunetion with Commissioner :ierbst's commerit, he would like to add that it appeared the addition should b~ built in the reaz of tlte present facility as there was a atrip uf land about 400 feet in length an which ta do so ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMI88ION, P'ebruary 20, 197 4 74-90 VAkIANCF NO. 2576 (C~ntinuod) Mr.. Sohwartxe notod de ~: mntter of clarification t:~at th~ ~ubmitteEl planr indicat~~:1 394 toC~l parking spavoa end not 480 ae indica.ted b~ the petttianer. Cheir.man Gauer nnted the~t if the petitionex ha~ not cumplied with the previoue varianca, why 9hould anothar variance be grantod. Cpmmisaioner ~'arano notad that he did r~ot beliove th e mobilohome park haii a permanent structure ineide ths requirFd s~~tback r~n~l Zoning Eupflr.vieor Charlee Roberte advie~ad that tho only atxuctE~~~e i~ side the reqLiirec~ et~tbeak we~n the block ~va11. Mr. Gunneman p~inked aut that the re~r,aurant axia~e d prior ta the development of tho mobil~homa p~r.k. Mr. Hans Hribereder, N61 Darral Street. Coata Mesa, appear.ecl before the COiRtll~B- eion ir~ behalf of the Pneenix Club and atatod that a requesl; had been made to the C.tty for a tam~~orary waiver to install a9.dowalks, which was granted. Co~nmi~aioner Iierbst offered a motion, secondad by Commis~i~nor K:Lnq and MCTION CARRIED, that the Planning Coirunisei.on reaommenda to the City Council that the suk~ject project k~e exemgted L•~.~om tha requixements to propare s~n Environment~al ~mpact Report pursu~nt to the provisione of the California Env:Lronmental Qual.ity Act. Co~nissioner Herhst offered a resolutinn to deny P e tition far ~13rta^ce Ho. 2576, inasmuch as the petitioner did nat demonstrate a h a rdship for the varfance as the subjec~ property hr~d amp1Q land on which t~ en large khe building without violating anx of the industrial o•rdinances, ~nd th a t if tho expang~~n was to accommodate tha generul public, and they c13d not sArve thF gen~ral publ:Lc, an a~dition was no~ i~eeded. Gommissionez Farano nated that he ag.rc~ed wi ommissioner Herbst in rega.rd to the cor.tinu~-1 violationq ~o the existing z~ ,.:~g a.nd to the vaxiance, however, this was an existing and con~ii:uinc~ op~ration and fie wondered if anme conditions could be iinpose~ upon the Yhoeni~x C1~~, to bring it into conformanee; ~hat ii~ appeared to be illegt~lly conducted and perhaps Mr. Cunneman would stiipulaL-e to ~ome conditioris regarding the drinking, noises, and other acta, which apparently - being carried on by some of the groups whiah leased the prr,mises, and the cc,,. ~:,tion of noise-attenuation devices in the new addition and poseibly cut down ..~me of the outdo~A activiti.es ~ if. not elim.inate them to solve som~ ~£ the problems. Gommission~r Herbst stated he would be willing to withdraw his resr~lution if the petitioner. would want a conti.nuance to rearrange the locatio.n of the addi- tion, as he objected to the presently ~roposed lo~-~tion. Mr. Gunneman indica~ed that he cculd talk to the architect again, although they had worked on the plan for about ten months and th e propoeal seemed to be the only solu~cion unless they were planning to have a completely independen9: res~aurant. Commis~ioner Farano que~tioned that in view of the fact th~• petitioner had considered thp alternatives, was he wi?ling ta say che Commissioi~'s suggestion to relocate the addition wac~ an imposeibility or would the petitianer want some time to give it some thought. Mr. Gunneman explained th~t it would be imposaib le to redeaign the addition ,~ith a greater G~tback and that they would have to consider an inc~ependent building; that ..ny losa of f~oor spa-:e dowr.stairs would cut down Gonsiderably un their seating capacfty. Co~rmissioner Herbst alarified that he was talking ~out a 5G-foot setback which was required for M-1 ~~ned property. CAmmissionex King ncted that thexe was appzoximutely 132 ~eet betwe~n the preaenk struc~ure and the south property linQ and a~~roximately 120 feet be- tweer. the struct~are a~3 the north property line, and inquired if the ~et.itia~n~r could construct th~ addition in either of the two directions. • ~ MINU'T~S, CITX PI,ANNiNr. r~~IS570N, ~'ebzuuYy 20, 1974 74-91 VAltiANCE NO. 257G (Continued) Mx. Gunneman e~ata~ that they aould con~truct ~he ad~li.tion to ~hc~ south, eince that woul& be cloeer to the ~xi~L•ing kitchen, and thAt no~hinq wea imposeible, how~ever, it would be very ttard to d~. Thereupan Commi.saionor Herbet withdrew his rAea]ution ~a dAny aubject petitlon. Comm~aeioner Farano offared a ma~ion, seconcied by Cammiesionor Herbst to roopen thc~ public henring anc~ continuo considerntion of Petitton E~r V~rir~nae No. 2576 to ttee meeti.nq of Mar.ch 4, 1974, in ordar far the Netttioner ta prepare reviaed plans anc~ be pro~ared to ati.pu].ate that o+atdoor 3peakera wc~uld be e~.imir~ntac9 nt leae~ during the evening houre, that tho coi~str,uction would be dor~e tn a way that would qiva sound attenuation to prott~ct th~ resid~nt.~ i.n ~.he arAa, and with soMe provisiong tr, be rnade concerninq the ~user~ and th~ bAnd gxoupa. C~mminaioner King alsa inqu3.red if the pe~~tion~r could stipulato to cloaing at 10:00 p.m. The for.eguing MOTION CARRIED by unanimous vote. VARZANCE NO. 2578 - PUBLIC HEARING. BFACON BAY ~NTERPRZS~S, 150 Nawport Center ~ Drive, Newport Heach, Ca. 92660, Ownorl FEDERAL SIGN & SIGNAL CORP., 9036 South Oak, Santa ~1iza, Cr~. 92707, Agentt requesting WAIVI:,R OF (A) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE~STANDIIVG SIGNS, (B) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FR~E-STANDING SIGNS ANA (C) MINIMUM DISTANCE DETWEEN uIGNS, TO ESTAH- LISH TWO FREE-STANDING MONUMENT-TYPE SIGNS ~r~ property descr.ibed as : A rectanqularly-shaped p~rcel of land consisting o£ approxim~tely 1.0'~ acres, having frontageA of approximately 160 feet on the eaat side of Euclid Street and approximately 277 £eet on the north aide of Fampae Lane, havi~ig a maximum c3epth of aoproximately 277 £e~t, and being l.ocated at the northeast corner oP Eucl.id Street and Pampas Lane. Property ~resently cla~sified C-1, GENER~L COMMERCIAL, ZONE. No one appeared in opposi.tion to sub~ect petition. Although the Staff Report to the Planning Conunission dated February 20, 1974, was not read at the public hearing, it ia xeferred to and m~de a part of the minutes. Mr. Jack Vodrey, r~~pre~enting F'ederal Sign & Signal Corp., the aqent for th~ petitioner, appeare.d beforE the Commission and stated they were the manufacturer and inataller of the signs in question; that when the signs were ozigina~ly s~- mitted, they were approved and at ~hat time they had duplicated some signs in- stalled at Tustir. Avenue; that th~ City allowed 25-foat high and 75-square foot signs with 18-inch copy on the wall but they could no~ get a permit to tnstall their. at this t:ime; tha~ in the meantime ~hey were granted permiasion ~or the s~gns and when they came in for the permit they had redesignad new signs and rather than having a 25-foot high 3ign, they weze askin3 for signing that wouZd be 4 foot, 9 inchea to the top and rather t:han a 75-square foot sign they wera ar~king for a 12-f oot by 4-1/2-foot or 54-square Fcot sign, plus ~ price marker ~ign. H~ continued by stating that their s~gns had aluminum ~E~.tP`:S with a lot of class= tha t their problem was that the Cods would not allow low ailhou- ette signs= :hat if proper planning was provided the signa could be extremely attract'_ve but not for every individual; that he was totally for the proposal because there was a large planted area; and they were in fact asking for a reduction in sig;z area from th~ original proposal. Assistant 2oning Supe~rvisox Ph111ip Schwartze advised that the ~wc; siqns, as proposed~ would not be in conformance wi~h the proposed amendment. THE }.~UBLIC HEAItING WAS CLOSED. Conn;~issioner Herbst nated that he r.ould see no purpoc~e f~r the request~d variance and tihe price signs being a11 by themsel.ves= th~t the c~rwash had been permitted and he questioned why tho price siqn could not be inco~porated with the insignigJ that appraximately 90q of the service stations were r,cc. even putting up pxice aigr.s, however, the price was right on the pumpa= that price a~qns had been allowed on the pole or integrated with the insiqnia1 that in reality the subject developmen: was a aervice stationf that th~re was no need for a siagle manu.~-ent sign for. use as a price sign and ~hat such a aign shou~.d bP able to kae integrated with the carwash and station sign~. ~ • MINUTFS, CITY PLANNxNG COMMTSSION, Februaxy 20, 197A 74-92 VARIANC~ NU. 2578 (Continued) Mr. VoclydX atat~d incoxpore-ting I:he lnqa with the pricing would orc~ate e~a~d rsic~nt and tha~~ the pr.opoeod eeparato price penal had besn a].lawed at thair oth~ar locationa in Newport Ben~:h and in I~ashion Igland. He tt;xther stat~d that i~t. was h~rd ta edy what th~ hardship woul~ be, except that the priae neadod to ba pnete~d for the cu8tom~aret ttiat he did nat want to incorporate tho prico on the main eign ~e it vro uld ruin itj that tho proposod eignir.g wae exa~ctly wh~t they hAd canstructad at the Newpcart cnrwaeht and that there had been ~ quostion of e~tbacka at thA pzoposed lacation and they had met ~hoee requiremente Commissioner Far~n~ questiondd whether action coulc~ be taken on the ~ub~ect p~titlon and mac2s sub;jeat to the condi~ion that the petitfonc.r comp~y with ~he new Sign Urdinance and Dapu~y (:ity At~orney Frank I,awry stat~d that would not be posaible. It was noted that the Dix•ector of Developmen~ S~xvicas had determinod th~at the proposed ac;tivity fell. within the definition o~E Section 3.Q1., Clase 2 ~f the City ~~f Anah9lm Guidelines to the Requirc~monta fc~r an ~nvixonmental Impact Repori: and ia, therefore, categoric~ally exempt from the xequi.rc~ment to file an ~nvir~nmental ?mpact Repart. Commiesioner Herbat oif~reel Resolution No. PC74-39 and moved for ita pdeaaga and adoption to grant Petit3on .far Variance Nn. 257$, in part, denying waivers of maximum numbar of free-standing sigiis and minimum dietanae between signs since the peti~i.oner did not demonetrate that a hardship would be created f.f sAid waivers were not gran±e~l, and gxanting waiver of mini.mum heic~ht of free~ standing signs inasmuch as ~imilaz sign~ had been previously approved in the C-1 Lnnef and subject to conditior.~. (See Resolution Book) On roll call~ the foregoing resoiution was pasaed by the f~llowing vot~: AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Compton, Farano, Herbsi:, King, Morley, Gauar. NUF.S: COMMISSIONERS: Johnson. ABSENT: COMMISSIONFRS: None. REC'LASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITTATED AY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING NO. 73-74-45 COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Ariaheim, Ca. 92805; "'~ proposing that property described as: An irregularly- shaped parcel of land cc,nsistinq of apparoximateiy 21.5 acres located on the southeast coxner of Sunkist S•treet and Ball Road be reclassified fr~m the CUUNTY A1, GENE~RAL AGRICULTURAL, DISZ`RICT to the R-A, AGRICULTURAZ, ZOP]r . Commissioner Farano offered a motion, second~ed by Commi3sioner Herbst and MOTION CARRI~D, to consider subject petition in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. 131, Ei-vironmental Impact Report No. 114, Reclassification No. l3-74-39 and Variance No. 2581, which were the next items on the agenda. GENERAL PI~AN AMENDMENT - PUB~IC HEARING. ~NITATED BY '~F1E I~,NAHEIM CITY PLANNING N0. 1:31 COMMISSiON, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim~ Ca. 92805; to consider changing ~he land use designation from industrial to medium density residentia]. for the arem generally located between the easterly city limita and the Santa Ana River, and Ball Ro~d and Cerritos Avenue. ENVYRONMENTP-L tMPACT ItEPORT N0. 114 RECLASSIFICATION Nn. '/3-74-39 VAI~?ANCE NO. 2581 - PUBLIC HEARYNG. ADOLPH J. SCHL''PTE AND ELIZABETH ANDERSON, 420 North Loara, Ant~hei.m, Ca. 92801, Uwners f NELS~N DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., P. 0. Box 10262, Santa Ana, Ca. 92711, Agent. Property degcrib~d as: An irregularly~shaped paresl af land consistir~g~ of approxi- mate].y 21.5 acres located at the southeset carner of Sunkiat Street and Ball Road. Property presently cla3sifisd R-~., AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. RI,~UE~uTED CLASSIFZCA.TIONt R-3, MULTIP.LE-FAMILY RESTDENTIAL AND M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL~ ZONES. ~ ~ ~ MINUT~S, CITY PLIINNING COMMIS5'LON, i'dbruAry 20, 1974 74~93 F2ECL11SSIFICATTUN NO. 73-74-45 AND GENERAL PLAN 11MS~NDMENT NO. ]31, FNVIRONNI~NTAL INIPACT REPORT NO 114, RF:CI,A3SZFIc:ATTON HU. _73-74-39 Ri3D V~I RIANCE N0. 258]. ~_ 1tEQU~STED VARIIINCL : RECLASSTT'ICAT.T.ON - Nb. 73-74-45 ___.r.____ Alt.hougti thF Stxff was not redd at th~ minutes. WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUTLDtNGS 7~ND (B) MAXIMUM BUI.LDING HP:IGHT. (See previouo ~.~em for deacription.) ~tepart r_~ tha Planniny Cnmmiasicn dnted Februaz•y 20, 1974, public hearing, it ia referred to r~nd madc a part of the Chairman Gauer open~d the ~ublic hA~ring and requestod to hear £rom the pro- panento for R-3 zaning. Mr. Kenneth Nelson, thP developer, appeared bPf.nre ~lte Commiasion and atatad they had been developing property far the pa8t 19 ,years an8 had developQd approximately 200 units in Anar.eim in the last twu yeAra. Mr. Y.ermit uorius, the archi4:ect for '~he developer, appeared before the Commis-~ sion and stated that the subject pr~~p~rty w~s 21 acres at the inter~ection of Ball Road and Sunkist 5treet and rst the pi~-nned on-r.amp to the Orunge ~'ree~way; that they w~re pr~posi.ng a dedicated atreet that would divlde the projpct into three village~ ~r. paraelsj ~ha~ the npartment units would be in two-storX bui.ld- i.ng~ surroiinded by green areaf that parking was proposed in a per,imeter manner ~o plac~ the re9idents ~.o the inside af i:he projectj that at the i:erminus of the main street would be a mt~jor clubhuuse with recreati~nal facilities, that property to the s~uth of subjeat property w~s z~~ned agricultural; that they wished to compliment City Staff Eor their cooperation in the evolution of the propos~ed glr~na; that they hz~d accommodated all of th~ requirements a~ to fixe protection, etc., normally required for this ty~e of pro~ecL-t that the general character proposed for the I.~roject and the floor plans wore included in the drawings which had been provided to the Commissiont that a force or problem was the possible n~ise generated from tY1P freeway which would bother the people wha li~re,3 in the projectf that they had provided bufter gtrips to buffer the residential from the freeway so as to not subject a resident ta that noise; that they were prepared to take whatev~r further 3teps were necessary, such as double-paned gl.ass, ~tc., to add to the interior livability of thASe particular units that wou].d be subjecte~l to noise; that iiiasmuch as the ireeway was down~ wind from the prevailzng wind, trey ExpectEd that the distraction from the £reeway would be less on the projec~. side of the freEway; that the buildinqs were placed at random locations and were proposed to introdt;ce small creeks within th~ project to create a masking of noise fr_om the freeway; that the village character of the pxoj~ct would be an outstanding c4mmunity; and that they contizued to put a lot of money i.nto amenit~es far the pro~ect. l~r. iiarry Knisely, a~~orney representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission ancl presented a map which shawed existing R-3 zoning in the area. He stated that he appreciated the subject praperty was on the master plan and was indicated f~~ industrial use; that the property was not zoned industrial but was residential zoningt that, in his opinion, the map was 90$ of the case as far as land use was concerned; that in reviewing the Staff Report, tk~ere Wss no adve~se impact, no problem with ~he schools, parks, etc., and the pro- , posal wus the highest and beat use of the property. Chairn~an Gauer requested to hear from the groponents of M-1 z~ning of subject property. Mr. Gerald Ker_nedy, Chai.rman o~ the 7ndustrial Committee of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, appeared beforP the Commission and read a letter dated ~ebruary 20, 1974, which wag addressed to the Pl.anning Commisaion urging t11e Commi.ssion to maintain the intent ot the subject property for industrial use. 1He further stat~d that a letter had been sent ta the City about five or six weeks ago when the zoning w~s propnsed to be changed f.rom County A1 ta R-A and said letter. also recommended th~t the highest and best use for the property was M-1. • I~1 i MIr1UT~S, C~TX 1'L,~IdNING CUMMISSION, Febru7ry 20, 1974 7a-94 tiECI.ABSIFICATTODI NU. 73-74-45 I~P1G GENEPAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 13~, ENVIRONM~N'l'AL IMPACT REPORT NO. 114~ R~CLAS3IFICATION N0. 73-74-39 A1VD ~-ARIANCE N0. 2581 ~ ~... ' In rnbutte+l, Mr. Kniea~y ~+tated the iseua wa~ land umo, t}int paying par~icular atte~ntion to tha map which ho had made available t.o ttie Commisai.oners, h~ yuasti.oned wh~ther R-3 was invading industrial or if in~9uetrial was invading R-3t and that thH prop~rty wae like tha othe.r. zoning ~.hat Rxis~od in the araa. Chairman Gauer notod that if tho sub_ ~ct pr.opc~rty l~~c~mo R-A, then t.he Conunis- siun would havt to d~cide if it wae tU b~ M-1 or R-~3, otc. THE PU}3I,IC HEARING WAS CLOSF.D. Cc-mmissioner Herbgk noted rogarding F-3 versua M-1 zoning, that about four yeare ng~ when R-3 was allowed on the sc-uth side of Ba:ll Road, there wAre qui.te a fe,w public hearings bof~re the Cammidsion and the City Counail and aven at that time the City Council had a three to two vatQ; that, in h1s o~inion, the integ- xity Uf the City of Anaheim wae at stakp becaus~ the industXial peop].3 in th~ subject area were brought in and ~he bnundaries of 66G .f.eet fram Ball Road to th~ back of the proaent complex were discussed~ t:hdt sinc~ that time ~t~ere had been a lot oF inc~ustrigl aquaze ~oUtage ~?eveloped in tho aroa and it wae di~+- cugsod that the area would remain industrial. propeityl that alsa ~unkiat Rot~d had bQen oon~inued for circula~ion and until that time the area was more or l~ss landlocked, including the subject 21 acres; that now that the road was in, ar-d primarily t.o serve the industrial area, it wou~.d be blocked off at ~he entrance and Bal.l Raad would be the main entrancc~ from the freeway into the industrial area and continuing down Ball Road ta service the in3uatrial area to the weat; that he knew for many years the City had considered th~ ax•ea along the river and the propo~ed freew~y, which was now under constructi.on, would probably be the finest industrial complex that Anaheim could afford, and onP of the re~sdns was~ that industrial people wanted premium fresway access; that, in reality, the freeway would alao connect with one of tha largest freeway complexes and would carry a lot of the traffic and the exposur~ along the fr~e- way woua.d be t~remendous, reducing th~ environment to a p~int where it would not k~e a good living environment fnr the neople; that the higllest and beat us~, in his opin~.on, was industrial. He continusd by atating the suhject 21 acres would not have access tu Ball Raad exr.ept at. the service station= that the in~.ent of Sunkist Street was to service the iridustrial area; that t.he Ccmmis- sion t-ad experienced in the past that where R-3 encroached into the industrial ax•ea, the industrial developers loaked elsewhere; that also the highest and beat use ~ax-wise woulci be industria.l; a~nd if the subject development was allowed ~n Sunkist Street, no industrial developers would abut that property; that ~he iz~dustrxal developers des~rved as much protection as any other type developer; that the area had been invalved for many year~ in a res~~.ution of. ~ntent to M-1 and many dallars had been spent fnr in~ustrial k.~uildings; that when he stated the integrity or Anaheim tvas invo~ved, he meant tz commitment had been made that this ai-fa would be industrial; that the proposed developmer.t on Sunkist Street would put residential traffic ontn Sunkist and the industrial developers wo~~ld not build next to these conditions; thut R-3 and M-1 traffic was not compatible; that the 21-acre devel~pment had no l.oqical access to Ball Road and, therefore, the 660 feet stopped at Sunkist SirPet where the subject proper.ty would have access to Ball Road. Upon request of Commissioner Compton for clarification of zoning as indicated on the map provided by the petitioner, Assistant 2oning Supervisor Phillip Schwartze advised that the parcel which was shown as R-3 and was indicated guestionable had been checked with the County a few weeks ago and the property was zoned County AR; that the northwest corner of Sunki.st and Ball Road was R-3; that northeast and south ;aas zoned R-S-5000, Single^Fam~ly D~tached, Zone and there was also some C-1 zoni.ngt that further south on Ball Road west of Sunkist was preaently detreloped R-3 multiple-famil~+ residential to a depth of G50 feet. Mr. Alb~rt Talt, 1375 St. August Road, San Marino, appea.red before the Commis- sion and atated he was present when the discussiona on the map with the County took place. Upon questioning hy Commissioner Com~ton, as to whether there were any plans fc,r R-3 development on th~ property in questi~n at the prese:zt time, NSr. Talt -~i-,~ed the property wa~s prezoned by a neighbor and hims,slf. • • MINUTE3, C.l'TY PLANNING COMI~1I35ION, Februory 20 , 1q74 74-95 REl;LASSIFTCATION N0. 73-74-45 A~1D CFNERAL rLAN'A~39 AND VARIANCE NO.12yg~NTAL IN~ACT R~PQKT NO. 114 ItECI~A38IFrCATIQti NO. .. ~_...___.-- -- C~mmi.seion3r Herb~t strted thak i.n real,i.ty it had bean the- City ~f Anahoi.m' ~ intont th+~t• tha pa.rcel in ~unstion would xenu~in M-1 whe~n it cnma into the City of Anahaim~ that in hi~ o~inion the City r.ed an obl~getion to the people sino~ they had already epent a lot af mc~ne,y in the area. Commissioner N~arbst ~fP.nro3 s mc~tion, seconded by Commie~sianar Fdr~no and MOTION CAR1tTED, rhat tha Planning C~mmiasion recomme~n~9a to th~ City Council thst the suk~ ject pro jact (Reclc~seific:n~ion Na. 73-74-45) be exempted fram the requirement ko prepa~re an Environmental Impact Report pur.sumnt to the provi- eion8 of the California Environmenta3. Quality Act. Comomi~seian~r Horbat of~ered Regolution iVo. PG74-40 and moved for itA paeeage and adoptto:~ to recommend to the City Council that Petitiion for tteclassifi~:a- ti.on No. 73-74-45 be approved, eetabli.shiny R-A, Agricaltural, Zoning o~i aubject property, subject to conditi.one. (See Resolution Book) ~Jn rull call, ~h~ foregoiny resolu~ian was paased by the following vote: AYES: COMMJ.SSIONERSs Compton, Farano, Herbst, Johnaon, King, Morley, Gauer. NOES : COMMISBIONERS : Non.e . ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Non~a. GENERF.L PLAN ANIFI~DMENZ' NO. 131, ENVIRUNNiENTAL I1~AC~ REPOP^' NU . 114 , RECLASSIFICATION N0. ~13-74-39 AND VAR.TANCE N0. 2581 _ __ Commi~s~.oner Hexbst offered a resolution to recommond to th6 City Council that subjQCt prope~ty remain M-1 and tlnat General Plan Amendment No. 131, Alternate "A", be adopted. Upon questioning of Commissioner Campton, Deputy City Attorney Frank LQwry advised that General, Plan Amendment under consideration should be adoptecl priur tn consideration of any change of 2oning for the proposed dev~lapmQnt. Commisgioner Farano noted it would b~ fair to state that the resolutian pro- posed b,y Commisaioner He.rbst wrould, in effecto be ratifying the presQnt z~ning map and would indicate that the Planni~g Commiasion intended and proferred to maintain the intent oF the M-1 Zone and would negate the R-3 proposal. Commissioner Jahnson noted that he understood l:hat the right-o~-way for Sunkist Street was purchased frorn the proparty owners and made into a atre~t exclusive- ly for tlie relieF c~f the industrial complex south of Ball Road and inquired if this information was fac~ual. Office Engineer Jay Titus advised that the purpot~e af Sunkiat St.reet was to be an arterial street for general ~~affic ciresulation and one of th~ main users wauld be the industrial traffic in t1~e area. Commissioner Farano inquired if the property to co~.struct Sunkiat Straet was purchased by the C3ty and not dedicatpd by the property owners, and Mr. Titus advised that he believed that was a correct statp:nent. Chairman Gauer not~ed that with £our new Planning Commissxoners, rh~y should nUt be asked to vote at thia time and perhaps a contix~uance would be in order to allow said Comiaissioners to review the subj~~t matter more thoroughly aince it seemed to be a rather important decision ta make ana tr.~ new C~mmissioners ahould have more opFortunity to review the entire m~cter. Cammiss~oners King and Morley indicated that they had viR~red the mat~er in the field and were prepared to vote. ~Commissioner Johnaon stated he was not prepared t~ vote on the matter since he had 'neard several angles that liad confused him~ howe~ver, the Comml..3ion was a seven-man bc~azd and h~ ~-hought the p~titioner had made a fine presentation; ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLAIVNINC CQMMiSSIAN, February 20, 1974 74-~6 GENL" 4 PLAN AMENQMENT ~JO. 13I, ':NVIRONMEIVTAL INSQACT REPORT N0. 1).4, RECLASwZFICATIONi~t ~0~73 74-34 AND VAI2TANG~• N__~,___d. ,?581 (Continuad) that the p.~ckage wl-ich wa~ ma~de dvai~ab]e ~o tho Planning Commieei~ners wdg good-lookinq, however, ha dia re~peot i:he fact tha~ there wero aomu uammitments ma~c~ to the industr.iral ~raperty owne.rA in the axea and eapeciaely~u~~h~~ee~atied of ~iaffic und the impact it wou].d br.i.ng u~on those neopl~. in all fairneas he w4uld have to abetain from voting at tk-ie time. Co~nmiaeioner Comptai atat~d he would have to agree w~l.h c'ommie~sionez JohnROn, partf.cularly in light of thQ ma~ that had been presont~d and that thQ ~eveloper had gone to a yreat deal of ~f~ort. CY-aiXman Gau~r stmtecl l1e felt th~ matter ghould have a complete sevon-man vote if aci:ion was to be taken. Gommiesioner Far.ano noted that ther.e waa a seven-man Commission for the purpose of hdving a seven-mAn vote and he would like tc aek Conunxsaioner Herbst to witharaw his reaolution regar.ding General Plan 1~mendment No. 131 a~nd that pQrhapa a work spssion could be scheduled so that the new C~mmiaeion~r~ were Fully briafed and knowl.edgeablQ to anewer any questians that aauld aonceivably have any bearing ~n this p~x'ticular property. Deputy City Attorney Frank L~wry advisaci th~i: there was a time factor involvQd and the matter cou~.d be continued for a maximum ~f ~wo weeks. Commisaioner rarano noted that in all fairnosa to the property ownere and the ~lanning Commission, a greater undc~rstRnding by all of the C~+mmissioner.s cer- tainly would not hurt the eituatlon. Commisai.oner Herbst stated that he did not want to try to railroad anything thro~.gh; that the situation went back for many years and if the new Planning Commisaioner.s wanted more and further study on the matter it might be worth- while to so continue it; that the propasal would have a long--range effect cn what would happen in the industrial area and if the apartments were allowed, more w~uld come in to further diminish the industrial area. Thereupon, ~ommiasioner Herbst withdrew his resolution regarding General Plan Amenciment No. 131. Co~nissioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Harbst and MOTION CARRTED, to reopen the public hearing and continue consideration Qf General Plan Amendment ~lo. 131, EIR l~o. 114, Re~lassification No. 73-74-39 and Variance No. ?581 to the meeting of March 4, 1974, for fUrther study. Commissioner Herbst stated in his opinion EIR No. 114 v~as not adequate for City standardsp that the report did not diacuss the adverse impact on the industrial area and did not discuas ar. interject the industrial traffic patt~rn i.n the area. Later on in the meet.ing, Zoninq Supervisor Charles Rober~s advised that Staff had checked with the County and the County R3 zoning on the area south of the 660-foot line was correctly indicated by the petitianert that the Board of Supervisors aggroved that zoni.ng in Navember 1970, and Staff would be checking to see if and when the City was notified in that regard. Commissioner Herbst atated he did not recall that th~ City had been n~tif.ied of the zone change by the County, although tt~e City was usually notified. Commissioner Farano notpd for the Commission that County zoning was nat bir.ding on the City, however, any zoning must be in conform~nce with the General Plan or t.ne Genpral Plan must be amendedt and he did not think it was necessary for ~taff to research zegardinq the County zoning of the parcel in question. Mr. Lowry advised that the Gounty zoning was na~ legally bin3ing, however, it was ~. factor to be weighed. RECESS - Chai.rman Gauer declared a recess a.t 4:20 p.m. RECONVEN~ - Chairman Gauer reconvened thE meeting at 4;35 p.m., with -'-'~' all Commissioners Qresento . • MINUTE9, ~I~Y ~I~ANNXNG COMMI:~SI()N, F`ebruary 20, 1974 74-97 RECLI~SSZFICATT.0~1 - PUBLIG IiFARING. ~AUL AND ELAYNE LOHR AND HEAAFRT AND NO. 73-74-4U EUNICE GRIMM, 982 NUrth Ba~avia, ~range, Ca. 92657, Ownerc~T ~OHN WELLS, 4500 Cr~mpue Drive, Newport Aeach, Ca. 92660, Agentt requesting that pxoperty deearib~d d~: A rectangularly-ehaped p+~rcel uf le~nd coneieting c~t ~+pproximately 1.2 ~crea, having a fxantaye ot appraximately 335 feot on ~he nortt~ aide of Lincaln Avc~- nue, having a mAximum dopth of appz'oximataly ~.50 f.aet, and beinq located approxime~tely 150 [net east of the centierlino of. Magr~ol~.d Avenue~ ba reclassi- fied frnm the R-A, ?GRICULTURAL, 2UNE to the C-1, GENERAL COMN~RCIAL, ZONE. No one~ appearec~ in opposition t~ subject p~titian. Al.tk~ough th~ Staff: Report to the P]•anning Commiesion dated February 20, 1974, waa not read at the public h~aring, it i3 raterred ta and mado a part of the min.utes . Mr. John Wdlls, agent for the pe~~.tio~iero appear~d befare the Commiasioci and atated the proposal was to establi.Q ;~~, ~e:tail produce market at th~a aub~~ :t location and that he was agreeable to a~l af the aonditions recommended -.~y ~hP St.aff as set forth in tho Staff Re,~art. ~HE PUBI.IC HEARTNG WAS CiOSED~ Commissioner Kinq poxnted out that tk-ere was a hig'~ block wall at the north, east and wast sides of i:he proper.•4y. Corranissioner fierbst qu~stioned if thQre ~aas a~etback proposed that would buffer the ad~oining R-3 d~velopmonts ta tl~e north and ea8t, and st.ated there ~caae a simi.lar produce market in Anaheim with which ~he City had had conaiderable troulle regarding the dispos~l of trash. Mr. Wells stated he believed it w~~s t2ie iritent af the oraner to have traski pir_k- ups ever,y other dak and tha~ the trash would b~ cavered and would not be allowed to rot. He fu:kher stated that the night ~peration ~vould not be significant; that they would operate fr.om about 1.0:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m,, give ar tak~ a few hours. He thPn sti~ulatc~d to confining the hours of aperat.ion to between 7:00 a.m. and B:00 p.m. Upon i.nquiry of Commissioner Farano, Mr. Wolls stated the sides of the st-ruc- ture wc,uld be op~n during the day and closed up at z~ight for security; that a berm was beinq provided on the front of the building and a pnrtion c~f the building would be hidden; that no produce would be displayed ~n the front, however, flowers might be displaye3 there. L1pon inquiry o~' CommisaionEY Herbst~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Phillip Schwartze advised that the proposal was totally within the site development standards of the C-1 Zone. In response to questians from the Planning Commisaion, Mr. Well~ stipulated ~that t.he coolers would be used for the processing af veqetabl~s onl~~. Cammissioner King offered a motion, spconded by Commissioner M~rley and MOTION CARRIED, that the Planning Commission reeommPnds to tt~e City Cour.cil that the subject project be exempted fro:n ~hQ requirement to prepare an Environmental zmpact Report pursuant to the pxovisions of the California Enviranmental Quality Ac~. Commissioner Kinq offered Resolution No. PC74~41 aaid moved for it3 passa~ge and ad~ption to x•ecommend to the City Council that Petition for Rec~.assi£ication No. 73-74-40 be appxaved, subject to the stipuZations by the petttioner and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Compton, Ferano, ~?erbst, Johnson, King, Morley, Gauer. NOES: CONIMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMIS~~ONERSx None. ~ ~ MlIN~TE3 ~ CITY. QLANNING COMMISSION, Februazy 29, 1.974 ~`+ ~~90 RECLASSIFICAmION - PUALIC HEARING. JOYZELLE 'V. RINKER, 21.21 Alqa Rodd, N0. '13-7a-41 Carl. ~}~ad, Ca. 92008, awner; NSOI2RIg N. C,REGOl2Y, 747 t:oaet- ~"` view Lrive, Ldquna, Ce. 92b51, Ag~nt~ roquesting that pro~erty daecrib~+d aes A raatrxngularly-ehap~s~! parcal of land coneibting of approximately 1.5 acree loeated on the northeast corner of• Ore-ngethorpe Avenue anc3 Pnst Lan~, havinc~ e front+~g9 of aoproxi.matoly 304 .feot on the nor~h side .~F Orangetliorpe Avenue, and having a frontago of apprax- imately 17A f.eet an tha A~st e1.de of Posr LanA be reclaagifiQd f.rnm ~h~ R-A, AGRICU~TURAL, ZONL to the G-1, GEI~EAAI. CGMN~RCIAL, ZONE. No ono appearcad in ~pposition to eubject petitinn. Although the Staff Report to ~khe Planning C~mmisaion dated Fabrudry 20, 1974, wda not read at the p~ibl.ic he~sriny, it is refprrHd to and made a p~-rt of the minutes. Mr. John U'Meara, reprasenting the ~gen~ for the petitioner, appearc~d bef.are the Commio~ion and stated the residents in the erea had no retail facillti~s available to themj that th~ propased ahopping centdr would have a Spaniah mo~ift that t11e req~iested C-1 zoning wr~a conaistent with the Anahc:im Gensral Plar~t that refexrinq ~~ the Planning Commiaeion's pu:~i.cy to requixe a 20-foot wide landeaaped area adjacent to ~inqle-family residentiAl zanir,g, L•he width ~~ sub~ect property was less than 146 £ee~~ and the requixed lanclsc$ping buffex would be exorbitantt that th~y were providing as mt~ch laiidscaping se pnsaible for ~ viable pzoject; tt.a~ ragardi.ng Condition No. 1 container~ in the Staff Report, he did not r.eceasarily knaw that the Directur of Public Works would require street lighting~ ~nd that the utilltiea were inj th~~ r~garding Condi~ tian No. 2, the arsa betwpen the north baunrlary of the sidewalks and the atreet along Orangethor.pe belonged to the County and the daveloper wauld liko to re- quest •khat the County pl.ar,t tree~ there if required, however, the dev~loper would definitely plant trees along Pnati Lane. THE PUBLIC HEAAING WAS CL05ED. In zeply to questioning by Commissioner Morley, Mr. 0'Meara stated the d~livery trucks for th~ liquor store would go behind the ~uilding off ~ost I~ane. In reply to questioning by Commissioner King, Mr. O'Meara atated tYiey had not talked wi~h any of the propQrty owners in the area, h~wever, thexe was nc~ ob;iection indicated by City Staff, Commissioner King n~tPd that. he was con- cer.~ied that none of the property owners were at the public hearing to inquire abotit the proposal. Commissi4ner Herbst noted that the subject property abutted about e~qht resi.- iential properties and the developer was not providing any pxotection dlong that property line; that the pro~erty owners were there to sta} as they owns~i their homes; that when a~n intrusion of tihis ~ype was proposed whi.ch would affect as manx single-family dwellings, ~here was reason for concern; that the experience with some of ~.he corivenience marke~s in other areas had heen that they were staying ~pen 24 hourt~ a d~~,r with constant traffic inter~cuptinq thc~ livinc~ environment, and withAUt adequate protection to the hompownersp that the proposal was not unusua]. and the Commission tried ta ingist upon some protection for ~he homeownexs since they aould not get away from ~he no~se; that the reaidents in ~the area may have expectPd commercial deve~.opment but it would beh~ove the Commi~sioti to only allow ~t un~ler goad~ development ~tandards. 2oniny 5upervisor Charles Rok~erta advissd that. the records indicated the r~sidents in the area were notifi~d roncerning the subject public hear~n5. Mr. 0'Meara stuced that tk~e parking proposed in the rear would be used by the ~smployees only. He inquired if the Commission could offer ~ome euggest~ons to provide. protection to the adjoining pr.op~rty own~ers, and Camomiss~oner Herbst stated that pexhap~ there was too much devalopment proposed on the subject property ~to offer ar.Y grotection. Cemmissioner Y.ing noted tha~ there were no entirances for the employess~ at t1'ie rear of tlie propased k~uilding and Mr. 0'Meara st~ted thut the employees would come to the tront of ~he building. ~ ~ MINl3'1'ES, CTTY PLANNTNG CUMMISSIUN, Fe:bruary 20, L974 74"99 12ECLA3StFICATI:ON NQ_ 73-~74-41 (Contir.uod) Mr. 0'Meara ~ur.ther atated that there w~uld we treoe p~.nntecl at 22-foot inter~ val.c, e~nd Commissioner H~rbst noted thnt the adjoining homea w~r.e very niae ati~d the propoaed landscaping was not aatieFactr,ry to provide euPficiont bu~faring. Mr. Rat~erta atatec3 thAt a point which aeetned appropriake ~o mention concernecl ttie ai.r.-conc~ic.l~ril.c-y Eor the pr~pooed developmenty that thez~~ hac~ bee~n some recent compl~ints f.rom adjacent residential uses that air-cnncittioni.ny Aquip- mdnt loaatud outside and on tha ground generate+d considorable noises tiiat h~ would que~tion tl~ie locatinn for such air-~onditioning equipmPnt, and the Commission migk~~ wiah ta discu~s this item. Hc f. ir.ther ~zdvised tr-at th~re was a naighhorhood commercial centdr in the area at the irtersect•ian of Kellogg ~x'ive az~d Orangethorp~s Avenue and t~ det9rmination mi.ght be in order that tho conunercial land use at KQllogg Driv~ might ext~n3 to the subj9cC property. Cliairman Gauer noted for the Commisaion that the proposal wauld ovQrdevelop aubject property and he did not believe the Commiseio:~ had ever approved C-1 zoning or any other c~mmercial Loni,.g in a eimflar area without a aomplete 20-foot buffer between the It-1 and the businesa devalopment. Regarding the location of the air-conditioreiny, Mr. O'Meara stated the intent waa ta place it on thP t~p of the building and to comply with the recomme~nda- tion that it be coverea and shielded from vfew. Commissionar Farano nQted for th~e Commission that the in~ake and Qxhaus~ syetem for the air-~conditioning would most likely have to be located at the ends of the builcling. During furi.her di~cussion regarding the oarking proposed in the rear of the building, Mr. 0'Meara stated that the reason 'the parking was provide~' in that location was to meet the C-1 Code r~quirementa for parking spaces; h~~wever, thP center wauld no~ genErate a tremendous need for ~~arking spacea. Ha further stated if they gave up part of the bu:~J.ding and provided the 2(~-foot landscaped buffer, the building would be too narrow= and that if the parking was provided on the east end, the project would not be economically feasible. CommisaiAner Herbst noted that while the s,c~gested chang~es to the proj~ct might not be sconomically feasible to the developer, the proposal could be v~ry costly ~to ~he adjace~lt R-1 development? tha~. the developer should not expect to meet thp parking space requirement at the expense of someone elae; that althaugh the int~:nt of the developer miyht be fine at this point in time, the onlx opportiunity the Commisaion wovld have to protect the homeowners would be now eince many things might happen anw,.gtreai~~ to make the development com- pletely incompatible. Commissioner Herbst further stated that the ~ublic hear- ing should be continued far further survey of the adjoining property owxzers and to give the petit.ioner an opportunity to redesign the pr~posal. Commissioner King suggested that the Commiasion might consider a].0-foot buffer area on the north a:id east property lines if th~ developer could furnish a ~.etter of acceptance f~om the property owners in rhe area. Commissioner Farano indicated that he did not understand how thz environment of a fature property ownEr could be wa3ved. He suggested that the size of the buildii:g should be reduced so that it would nat requi.re the number of park~ng space~ to ;..he extent that th~ area in the reaz of the proposed build- in~ was nat needed. He further statec~ that he had personally wiLn~osed the noise and distraction impossd on a peraon's living environment by this type of development which had rendere3 the outside of the home absol.utely useler~st that the only way he coUld vote in f~avor of the proposed gr.oject would be if tha 20-faot buffer strip •aas impoged. th~s matter of the air-conditianing wms resolved, and the parking wae r~~u~ced, etc. He further stated that the 'l0- foot lauffer strip tiould creat.e an entirely di£fere~nt enviranment. Commissioner Herbst noted that if the building area was recluced, and tho park- ing was eliminated in the rear of the building, ho woula be more in favor of waivinq the parking rather than waivinc~ the pro~ection ta the adjoining prop- erty owner~ since it was uncertain as to wh~t might nccur at a future time. • • MINUTE3, CITY PLANNxNG COMMIS~IJN, Februaxy 20, 1974 74-100 R~CLA35I~ICATiON N0. 73-7a-41 (Continuad) Hc~ furth~r noted that in his opinio;~ the citizana of ~he City were ~oncerned and relf.e8 on tho Planning Commission for c~ood aound planning, and the C~mmiseion felt tho p„posal. was overbuilt and encroaohAd upon tha ~djacent R-1 proper~ios= and tt~;~t he would coneider m varit~nce from the piarking requir.a- ments if the develaper could como cloac, but not for a 508 reduction of parking r3pace . Commiseioner Herbst c~£fored a motion, secondad by Commiseioner Marley, to reopen the publi.c he~ring an~~ continue consideration of Petition for Re~~l~+seification No. 73-74-41. to the meetiny of Mareh 4, 1974. Mr. Roberte advised that if a variance waa n~ceaeary in conjunction with thc~ revised plane, said variance would be required to be publiohad in a newe~saper and would r3qui.re a t.ime element of four weeks. Mr. O'MEara indicated that a four-week cantinuance w~uld ba acceptab].e and i:hut he underetood qenarally thai: if. he rnodi.ficcl ~he project aecording to the Pl.anni.ng Comi~iis~ion's suggestions and came fair'ly r.lase to the parking r~quire- rnent, a variance w~uld be granted, and rhe Planning Commisaion siyr~ified that he wae corract. The foreqoing MOTION CARRI~D by unanim~us vo~e. RECI~ASSIFICATION - PUBLtC HEARING. CHESTER H. CHIYA, 6002 De ~'r;es Lane, NO. 73-74-42 L'a Palma, Ca. 90620, Owneri BETTY M. FRr~NKLIN, 1303 Temple Hills Drive, Laguna Beaeh, Cr~. 92651, Agentl requeating that property desc.ribed as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appro:~timateZy .21 acre k-avit~g a fr.ontage of ap~ar.aximately 63 feet on the north side aP Lincoln Avenue, hmving a ma~imum depth of approxi- mately 147 feet, and being located approximately 224 feet east of the center- lin~ of Western Av~nue be reclassi~ied from the R-]., ONE-FAMILY RESIDEVTTAL, %~N~ to the C-l, G~NE;P.11L COMMERCIAL, ZONE. No one appeared in oppositian to subject petitian. Althotgh the Staff Report to the Planninq Gommiss~on da~:ed February 20, 1974, was not xead at the public hearing, it is referred t~ and made a part of the ma.nu ~es . Mr. Max Witman, 11454 San Vicente Boulev~xd, Lo~i Angeles, appeared befor~ tt~-~ Commission as representati.ve for. zhe de~veloper and st~'~ed the proposal was to have a coffee-type restauzant at the subject 'locatioz~ which would be operated by SpirFS; that the three adjacen~ lats were bexnq aaquired in cQnjunccian with the subject lot for the proposed deveiopment; and that ane of tr,e concerns wa~~ t.he 20-foot lmndsc~pe strip whicti was requixed at th~ east pro~erty line as they needed the spa:e for parking. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Upon quostioning by Commissione~ Herbs'tr Mr. Witman indicated he had not talked t~ the adjacent proper.ty owners. Commi3s.ioner King noted for the Commissi.on th~t he had reviewed the subjec+: prop~rty in the field, as well as the adjacent R-1 tract, and from thE rondi- tion of the homes ir. th~ ~ract that p~roperty would become C-1 before ].ang; that he would ask th~ 1?lanning Commissirn to picture th~ R-t tract aa C~1. FIe further n~ted th~t the condition pf the homes would n~~t justify a 20-foot landscape strip; that a shopp~ng•cei~~er was locat~a across the atreet from the suUject property: and that some thou~ht should bQ givsri t.o a GPneral P1an amend- ment for the R~1 tract. Assistant Developm~nt Services DirecL•or Ronald Thompson advised that the subject arer~ was considerect to be a transition ar~a in the "Front-On Study" and that 'the R-1 tract homes were oldex and some radevelopmPnt w~s felt appropriates further, that there was in~ensive home occupations in the residential area n~rth of the alley which could becoMe commercial. i ~ MtNUTi:S, C'1TY I~LANt7ING ~OMMI93ION, P'ebruary 20 , 1974 74-1.01 RI:CLASSIFICATION NU. 73-74 42 (C~ntinu~d) _ ._._.------•----~--- - Mr. W.itman etnt~ed a eiig~e~aLion had taaon of~Qrod by 3thf~ thr~t ono oi: tha auo~~• dxivae of! Lincoln be r:losed and the pezking rearrenged~ that the architect I;ac9 re-atudiRd the parki.ny l+ayout c~nd the moc~iti.cati~n would caus4 a minimum net loe~e oP dpproximntely t'our park.ing epncsa whivh wou1Q b~ neqakive to thie typc operAtionj thnt ~n thei.i~ ~xperi.enoe with bui~ding Spir.eg Reetdurmnts, they haQ founQ thnt 75 to 80 pnr ing spucc~+ wera prnotiae-lly rtusnddtorYl ~hat the r~at~u- rnnt did a me~or volume of bubinc~se and th~a Codc+ did n~C Y1dVP. r~nything ro do with the eaonomi.cs af the operstion~ dnd thnt i~ they l~st very much parki.i-g, they would heve no tnt~reat in tho eubject prop^rty f~r the ~ropoaed ~evelop- m~nt. Zoniny~ SupRrvieor Charles Rabsrte acivieed t~~iat th~ dr.ivewaye werd diacuasod et the Intordep:..t~nAntr+l Committee MeQting And were to have been di^cuesod .further wifih the Traffi.c Enyii~eer, and he was not aware of the concluaion. Commiaei~oner Farano nut9d that the rearrdngement of tt~e parkirig would .result in tho loss of f~ur parking spaces and Mr. Wi~man etated in that case the dt~valop- mt~nt wu~ild have only 65 parking spt~ces. Assistant 'Loning Supervi3or Pt-illip Schwartze advi:~~3d that by Code tha rostau- rant r.e~~uired 37 parking gpacc~s. C'ommiasion~r Fierbst noted that tne pr~poaed circulation wae poor and Mr. Wi~.~nat~ agr~eed it wd. not tt-e l~ast. Commissionpr Farano no!:ed L•hat the Spirea Restaursnt at Eucl~.d Street and Bgll Road had ver,y poor garkinq facilitiea althaugh, in comparison, it was a bc~tter arrangement aa f.ar as paiki:tg '•~a9 ~oncerned tht~n that being proposed, and Mr. Witman atate3 although hia c..,mpany did not develap that facilit•y which had approximately 45 parkina spacea, the size of the building was ver.y clase to the ene bcinq pr~p~aC~. Mr. Witman rEiterated that if the par.king f..or the propc~sed developm9nt was reduced to 65 spacos or le~s, they would not be intere~ted. Mr. rrea Covina, 3143 i.incoln Avenue, Anat~eim, appe<<xad refoxe ~he Commission and stated he was A resident for 17 yeara i.n the adjacent R-1 ~ract and that he agreed that said tract should be rezoned since the area was noisy and was an eyeRVre. Co~nisai~ner King inquire~ if the petitioner wuulcl stipulat~ to the termination of Candi~iona]. U$e Fermit Nos. 452 ~nd 552 upon comrle~tion -+f devel~pment of subject property, and M.r. Witman so siipulated. ..c wa.s noted that the Dir~ctor or nevelopment ServicPS had d~tarmined that tk~e pz~opo.sed activi~.,y fell within the definiti~n of Sectior. 3.01, Class 2 of the City ~: ~naheim Giiidelines t~ ~che Requirements for an Environmental Impact Regort ar~d was, therefore, ca~eqorically exempt from the reo,uirement to file an FIR. ~mmissioner Farano affered Resolution No. PC74-42 and mcved for i.ts passage a.nd adopti~n ~o recom~nend to thP City Council that Petition for Reclas~ifica- tion 130. 73-74-42 be app.roved subjec~ to the two accessways off Lincoln Avenue being approved by the City Traffic Engineer and s~~bj~.ct to the stipulation that Conditianal. Use Fermit Noss. 452 and 5~2 ahall be t~rminat~d upon comple- :ion of develo~n~ent af suflject Fxoperty and subject to the conditiona; and, further, that the 20-fo~t landscaped buffer strip was determined to be unneces-- sary c3ue to khe condition of the homes and the ~act that the adjoining prop~r- tie~ were more in the character of .^.otnmercial zoningj and th~t the Planning C~mmission recommends tha~ the property locatad on Lincoln Avenue, on Western to Grant. Aven~aes, be reviewed for a dPtermination as t~ whether a General Plan amendmant shauld be initiated to rezone those properties with a resolution of intent. (See Resolution Buok) On roll call, Ui~ foregoing resolution was p~ssed by the falZowing vote: AYES: COMMISSION~RSs Compton, Farano, Hexbst, Johnson, ~Cing, Mnxley, Gat:er. NAE3 s (rOMMISS?ONERS : None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONER:: None. ..~ ~ ~ • MTNUTES ~ CITY. PLJINNING COMMISSIONr FAbruary 20 ~ 1974 74-1A2 RECLABBIF:CCATION - F'l]BLTC F1F;ARING. CASA EMP~RADOR, LTD. , c/o Robort Roseneteil, 73-74-44 IVO ,7. K. Lasaer Company~ 1880 Century Park Er~st, Loa Anc~e].ee, . '- -"'~~ - Ca. 90067, Ownerr RATNBOW rACTFIC, INC., P. 0. Box 11175, TENTATtVE MAP UF s~nta Ana, Ca. 92701, Aqontt xeyu~eeting that property TRACT NO. 83A0 de~scribe8 ne: A ractnnqulacly-stiaped percel oP land con- ~ - R~ ~tinc~ of aFproximat.el f 13.8 +acros heving a frontage of apgroximately 4b9 feet on tho noxth eide o~ KatelJ.a Avenue, having e maximum 3e2th of appraxim+~tely 12t20 Eeet, and beinq loaated approxi- matoly 4d5 feot weet of the centerline of Nukwood 4trac~t bo reclasaifisd from the R-A, AGRICULTURAI~, ZONE ~.~ tha R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDEI~TIAL, ZONE. TENT?1TI1/~ TRACT REQUF:;T: ENGINEERs LA.NDEk ENGINEERINC, 412U Bireh Stre~t, Suita 1A9, Newport Bea~h, Ca. 92660. Sub~ect property is pr.oposed ~or aubdivi~ian into 75 R-2 zoned ].cta (74 units) . No one app0ared in opnosition ta eubject petition. Althougt- the 5taff Report to thQ Planning Commissi.on ~at~d February 20, 1974, was not reac~ at the pub].~.c hearing, it is reforred to and made a par~. of Che minutes. Mr. Jerome Weinberg, ugont for tha ~etitioner, app~~red begore the Commission and tool. oxception to Gondition Na. 7 of the Stnff Report cancezning interrial private vehicular ac:cegsways for the tract. THE PCIBLIC TiEARING WAS CLOSED. Office Engineer Jay Titus explained currant private etr.oet stanc4ards and etated the Commission might desire to oonsider somPChing lese th~tn the ultimate and perhaps allow ~ar parkinq ~n]y on one side ~f 32-foot wide streeta. Commis~ioner Fgrano pointed o~it that 38-foot Gul^de-~acs had been referred back by the City Covnc:iL for s~kudy by the Sta~f as to whether thAt radiut~ was appropriate for emerqency vehicles; that he was concerned about these ma~ters aince this was the ~irs~ reque~t for a conversion from an apartment to a condominium in the City and if there w~a any project in the C3.ty that wosld s~rve as a model, this one wouldj and that the City would be beseiged by apart- ment owners to convert to cor-domiafum~ ar.d they would all have substandard streets if tY:is onz did. Mr. Weinberg st~ted that the stre~:ts would be maintzf.ned ~y the home~wner.•s as~~ciation ana incorporated in the CC&Rs, Mr. Titus adviaed that i.f the streets remained privute streets, they would not have to be dedicated. Commissioner~Herbst natsd that according to the plans i•t appea,red there would not b~ too much of a probleia to make tha c~nveraion; that the Commission d3.d know that the parking standards for a condominlum needed tn be upgraded fror~ that of an apartment project. berause the people would own the units; that if thQre were chi]dren or teenagers with cars trey wauld Qrabably have to us~ some street parkiny; that over a number of year3 some changes might take ~lace and the Commission needed to look at the praposal from «].ong-range vxewpoint; and that the streets would neeu to be widened and some landscaping provided.. Mz, Weinberg stated he had revieF~ed the park::ng requirements snd street wi.dths, and with a 36-fo~t ~•'ide street, parking would be allowed on both siciE~; with 32-foot wide streets, parking wauld be allowed on one side only; vnd with 28- foot wide streets, no parking k•ould be allowedj that the devalopment had ample parking and, ther~fo::e, could havP the 28-foot wide streets. He further s':ated that mary of the :eidents parked in the stree~: aress , however ~ addi.tior~al park- ing was being provided. Commissioner Herbst noted that with no curbs, the reople wauld park on the side- wa1~c4. Commissioners King and .iorley noted for the Cammission tnat they visited th~ subject property nv~r the weekend and there was littlz parking on tlie streets. ~ u MINU'~ES, CITY PLANNING COMM75SION, Februn .ry 20, 1974 74~10:~ ~t~CLAS5IrICi+i'ION N0. 73 74-44 AND TENTAm.LVE MA~ 0~' '~RACT N0~8340 (Continuo~l) Mr. weinbarg st,3t-=~~' ~hat th~ deve].opm~nt wae a l.ow~deneity pz•o~~at wi.th ~4 unite on 13 . 8 r~c rP .. Di~cu~sio~n followcc~ conc~zrting privata str~et. ~tandarde ino]~udi.i~q widthe, during which Mr. T~.tue a-dvised th~r. the standard~ requ~red auzb nnd yutt~r on both t~ides of the e~r~6t, and the eacti.on should be a crawn a~cticyr and not the "V" ge~tion ae shown on th~a plana. Conunissinner King notea that th~ Sani.tation ~~~Rlsonand~wauld~be retdoitnq thens and bir. Weinbery fltated that thuy were unhappy traeh atoraga areas . Co;mni~sionor derY~st noted fur th~ Commiaeion t.h~-t i~asinuch aa this was a"first" and he did not want to gurpriee the potiticner; that i.t would be impartant to t~ke a l~ok at tl-ie parking situation r that ~~me thought shou ld be given as t:o the w~clth of th~~ atreet and whother there would b~! cur.bs on both sides or on one side; and t at he would suggest parking on one aide of t2-ie atreot Uecause at a future time m~re parking would be ns~dc~d. Thereupon,Commissioner Herbst offared a mc~tion, ~oconded by Commisai~ner King and MOTION CARRIED, that th~ public h~aring be reo~ened and conaideration of lteclusai.ficatior3 No. 73-74-44 and Teritative Map of Tract NU. 8340 continued to the meeting of M....rch 4, 1974, in order for the petitioner to provide an overlay of the p~~rking to k~e provi.ded, a now srreet section, and other informat:ion wh.ich mi_~ht be pe:~tinent. .'1REA DEVE]~OPMENT - PUIILIC HEAR~NG. INI'rZATED BY THE ~1NAHE=M CITY PL~INNING PLAN NO. 114 COMMISSION, ?Og East Z,incoln Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 91805, to consider vehicu'lar circulation and access for approxi- mately 50 acr-~s generally b~unded by the nvztherly extQnsion of Grove Street to the wcst, Mira oma Ave nue to the nurth , Tus tin Avenue to the northeast, the Atchison, Topeka & San~a Fe Railroacl nn the southsast and La Palma Aven~ae to the soui:h. Zoning Supervisor Charles R~borts pre:~ent~d the Staff Report , the Planning Commissian dated February 20 , 1974, and said Staff Report i ~ referred to as if sei: forth in full in the minutes. He noted for the Commission that thE atudy ar~a was comprise~i of approximately 50 acresf that the majcrity of the south- c~.ly half of the~ study area was ~resently being developed as axi industrial subdi vis fon f that a parcel map and street improvemsnt plans ha~ k~~en approvecl showing a street alignment in the approximaL? lccation shuwn E~,r Portion A of tne streEt on the exhibits; that the parcel adjscent to Pc+rtion C of th~ illus- trated s~reet was proposed ta be develope.d in the very near future as an indus- trial subdivision with a st.reet alignment and the approximate location shown; and that develo~ment plans for the parcel adjacent ~.o Portion H were unknown at the present time; that there was a definate need for a traf fic c9.rculatian link between La Palma and Miraloma Avenues in. the subjec~. area; that the property owners had keer: contacted with the exception of the owner of the frontage on Tustin Avenue and Staff was having ~.ome difficulty ln reucha.ng him; and that Sta~f's recommendat~.ott would be th~.t Exh ibi~ "A" be adopted, as it wou2.d be the ? er~st disrupti.ve to the three r~arcels inv~olved. Mr. Richard Boatman, representing JFsD Development, Inc., or_e of the property owners, appeared before the Cornmission and stated he would recommand that Exhibit "D" be approved which would grovide for better access, howeve.r, if Exhibit "A" was approved, it would not chan~?e their clevel.opment plans. Mr. Dan E. Webb, 4620 East La Palma A~~enue, Anaheim, representing Dew Cons*_ruc- tion Company, one of the property owners , appear.Ad befor~ the Commission and stat~d he ~;oui 3 re.:ammez~d that Exhibit "B" be approved as it wou].d pr~vide acces s to Tus t i n Avenue . ~ommissioner HerUst stated in regard to Exhibit "A" that it would diviae a large parcel wk~i~h the proparty owner would not be able to develop as one parael, howevzr, it was probably the best route for circulati.on. He inquized what efforte ttie 5raff. had made to contact the othgr Qroperty owner and Mr. Roberts advised that naticc:s ~ad been mailed. M r MINUTE~~ GITX FLANNING COMMI89IaN, Februaz'y 20, 1974 7a~~~4 AREA QLV~LOPMENT ~LAN N0. 114 (Continued) .__..._.__.._-_ Furthor diecuesion pur~uAd reqaxdinq the n~lvantages ond di~edvantaqe+~ ot the thr0e proparties invalvmd end it wa~~ p~~lnted out that not knawing the plans of the third property owner, Mr. Hurwits, !or developmen~ ot hiA property it would be in tho beet intereet of a11 conc~arned to make fuxther ePfort to onntact him~ by ~erti~ied mnil. Commi~~ionAr King oftered d moti~n, ~econded by Commiseioner Herbst and MO'~ION CARRIE~, t~o reo~en the p~iblic hAarinq and con*.inue considaratian ~f ~rea Devc~l- opment Plan Na. 114 ta thn meeting ~f March 4, 1974, ~:or the reaeonA previou~ly atnt~d. TEMPORARY AG~70URNMENT - Chairman Ga~uor ad;journed the meeL•ino for dinnex at .____.~._._._ --- - 6 :15 p . m . RECONVENE - Chairman GAUer reconvened the meeting at 8:00 p.m., "'~'~` with all Commisaioners oresent. GEt~FRAI~ PLAN AMENDNS~NT - INITIAm~A BY THE ANAHEIM CITY' PLANNING GOMMISBTON, NO~ ~_ _ 204 Eaet Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92805, to consider updating th~ Anaheim General Plnn relating to the +~roa g~neral].,y iocat~a vetween La Pa~ma Avenue and the Riversid~s Frecaway and Euclid Street and Braokhurst Street. ENVYRONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. aRIGH~IM YOUNG UNTVLRSITY, REPORT N0. 113 a Utah non-profit ~orpor.ation, ~0 East South Temple, --f -'- Salt L.•lce City, Utah SAlll, Owner; MATItEYEK HOMES, RECL'AS~IFICATI ON TNC., :~. O. Box ?11, Upland, Ga. 91786, Agent, request- N0. 73-74-36 ing that proper ty descr i be d a s: A n "J." t~ha ped paresl of land cansisting of approximately 137 acres having frontages c,t approximately 510 feet on tne weat side of Euclid Street and approximately 2000 feet on the iiorth side u= La Palma Avenue and b~ing located appraximately 330 f.est west of the cQnt~rline of Onondaga Stree' be recl.assified from tha R-A, AGRICULTURAL, z0I3E to ~he PC, PLANNED COMMUNITY, 7,ONE. Subject petitions were continued from th~ meeting of January 7, 1974, for re- adv~rtis~ment, and from t11e meeting of Januarp 21, 1974, for consideration by a full Cor,unission. Approximately 20 persons in~licated their Fresence in opp~sition to sixb~ect pPtitionx. Asoistant 'Lon ing Sup~rvis~r Phillip Schwaxtze read the Staff Report ta the p~anriing C~mmission dated February 20, 1974, and said Staff Report is refe~rred to as if sek forth in full in the minui:es. Commias~oner Farano offered a motion, secon3ed by Commissioner Johnson and M0: ION CF,RRIE1), to hold public heax~,ng on the Gen~ ~al Pl~n Amendment and sub jeat ;~etit3ons s~.multaneously, Mr. Jim Ciiristiansen, representing the devQloper, appeared before tlxe C~mmisaion and reiterat~d his statemants made on January 21, 1974, concerning the disposi- tion of i:he property and the fact that the sub~ect property was now a~railable for developmsntt that a petition containing 28 signatures of ~nom~owncrs in favar of i:he proje ct had be~n presented to the P].anning ~ommissionf that they had made it their policy to try to inform everyor.a who would listen ~o them a2~out the projectl that they had mQt witk! the schools, th~ neighbors, etc., however, he understood the concept had been "pla~~ned by word of mouth" and that th~se things happenQd out af fear; that the Governmental Affairs Committee of the Chami~er of Commeres had met and came to ~the conc lusion that the proposal was a logical use for the property; that the Servite Schodl had indicated ~pprov~l of the proposal, as pres~nted= that each time prablems had ari~en, rather than presenting a half - bakad plan to ~che Planning Commiss~ion, th~y had taken the time tn make the chariges ta get to the Einished produat and have it accept~dt th~st tihe3r g~~posal waulr] be ~:F benefit to the l:ity= tha~ he would r~quest the Planning Commission t~ ba~e thei r decision on facte and not on emo~tions, as they were trained to do; ~ ~ MYNU'fE3, Cl~Y PI~ANNING COMMJ9gxON, F'ebruary 20 , 1974 74-105 GFNERAI, PLAN AMCNOM}:NT N~! . 130 , ENVI1t~NMENTA-L~ IMPACT 1tEPORT N0. 113, AND RECI,ASSIF1CATi0N NO._ 73-74 36 (Continusd) ~ that thc~ develop~-;: axpectea to ~+penr~ S55 miliion in the const•.ruction ~f. ttie proposed projecC in the Cityt th~t lf theze was dnything Axtremely controver- sial, he would e~cp~ct that many mor.e pea~].e would bo preaent in appoaitfon~ nnd that thare wer~ probdbly dome pmaple ~reeent ii~ fAVar oP ~he ~raject dnd he would ].ike tliem to b~e heard. t~1r. k-~1.ph Martin, renresentir.g Walter Rich~rdaon r. Aseociatee, Land Development Con~u~.tante~ 230 Weat 17th StrAet, Costa Mosa, appe~+re,d be~prA tha Commisaion and atated tl~eir philosophy wa~e to look dt tile 137-acre flZ'E?d w'_!h the idea tl:at there was u choiao o£ continui.ng eubdiviaions ur to say here wt+e an o~partunity bc~cause of the size ~~f the land to build something dif.ferent w~.th a different~ kind of living envixonment fc~r thoso wno othorwiee might have to move outside af Anaheim t~u find~ tha~ they pr.oposed ~-o capitalize on the locational a~p~cta o£ the lanc3f that ~he propo~al wae to hav~ a].ake in ~hd middle af the prop~r*_y, with a variaty of dwelling unit types inc;luding a massive apartment pro jec:t and condnminiuma with varying densitioA, etc.t that tlte numl~er of apArtmonts repx'e- aented a small partian of the huilding ua-ite ori tho property; that the condo- mi.nium units would have the same kind of pooplo wha made mor~gage paymet~ts in a typical reaidential developmentt that becauRe of the location of the 137 ~cres they could probably dev~lop a private straet co~nmunityJ that the oriqinal plans indicated ontrance to the subject propertX from La Palma Avenue and from Euclid Street, and from their standpaint tliat acceas was adequate, however, Cit,y Staff inc~icated there was a need to provide traffic relief. along La Palma and Euclid; that regarding dEnaity, he statAd they measured in ~erms of the lmpac;t ~that density created on nearby properties, resu.lting in overcrowded atreets, sewers, and other detrimc~ntal elements to the patterns of livirigj that there was ade- quate capacity 3n existing schoala to accommodate the developmen~f that the City streets .ould accommoda~e the traffic from the project= Lhat there would not be an overload ~n the public utillties in thP areat that the onl,y legitimate abjection was whether the project would adversely affect the adjacent property values through depreciation; that as a result of the dollar commitment in the pr~posed development~ the surrounding property values wou~d be enhanced; that fhe City should bP concerned about the public versus pri.vate streets since a minimum of dedicated streets was suggested, and the vast majority of priv4te streets would rest solely upon the pe~ple who lived in the project; in regard to +~he concern of the adjacent property owners, 1lnaheim had excellent ordinances which would requa.re that wha~t was submitted would be constructed; and khat iii ~Y,e event changes were made to the plans as reprzsentad, additional public hPar-- ings would become necessary. Mr. Christiansen continued by stating that as was presented in hi.s testimony at the previous Planning Commission hearing, the project would indeP%1 benefit the peaple to the westt that he had met with ~he Orange County Transit District who indicated if the develogment plans were aQproved, the buses w~uld be re-routed to pick up those senior citizens who would be residing ~n t-'.-,e area; and that an option had beer~ given to the City to purchase the additianal park land within one year ao that the City did not have to purchase the land right away. Mr. CY-ristiansen indicated that he would ~~ available to answer any question: in conne~t.ion with the praject. Mr. Thomas Miller, 1154 Holly Sti! ~•t, Anaheim, appeared bef~re the Commission and stated he had lived next to tti~ subject prQperty for Qiyht years. He indicated he was in favor of the subject devalopment since th~re were problems ~.n tYie arPa concerning drainage and t=aff?.c and he was qetting no relief fxom the City; that he had been befare the City Council regarding the terrible traffic problem when he could not get in and out of his propert,y; and that he would like to do away witr. the problems presently existing ir~ the area. Mr. Craig Holoboski, "'~63 West Romneya Drive, Anaheim, ap~eared before the Cocnmission and statec: he was amazed that Mr. Christia:tsen was sti1.1 insisting ths~t he had tried to meet with everyone in the areat that at least 20 residents on Romneya Drive had not spoken with the dQVeloper; that he had lived in the area since 1955 and his purpoae at the hearing was to focu~ on the problems; that there were serious traffic problems in the area and he had changea his , mind regarding the lal:e developmentt that the adciitional population that would ~J MINUTE3, C7TY kLANNING COMMTS3TQN, Fobruary 20, 1974 74-1U6 GENERAL PLAN AMF;N()NlENT NO. 130, ENVIRONMENTAI, IMPACT REPORT NO. 113, ANq RECLASSIFICATION Nq. 73-74-36 (Continued~„~ __ _ ,~., foad into the echoola would certainly n~t make ~ho pQdeatri.an load an,y lightart that L•hore had baen a oouple of drownings in the drda~ ~hat he liked the adult concept, however, with thes lake being clo~e by, the children might accidontly drownr and that he l~aa not h~erd nny proposed ouggeatio~ls f~r safoty around the laka eraa. Mr. Jam~so Arn~rich, representing Foreat Luwn Cametery Aet~ociation, appc~ared before tl~e Cammtasion i~~ oppas+ltion to dub ject petitione~ and stated k-i~ organi- ~ation wa~ not c~ntacted by the devQlopar. HA presented a map ahowiny the lucation of kh~a existing hospitul and the pxoposed huspital in the area and st~ted thQ majority ~f the traffic w~uld ga down EuclidJ that the trafEic would concentrate on Coronet (Medical ~enter Arive)t that ~he daveloper had mentioned :isnsity did nat mean anything, howevar, tra.fiic would not mean anything unless the tr~£fic im~a;.t was analyzed and ha had contacted a traf£ic conaultant who indicated a great deal. c~f traffic would be ganerated f~'om the different elemente of the development ~nd that there would be appraximately 5000 additional cars to the area which would be fightinq tor space on the st~'~et~ that regaxding the proposed office park, a"no left turn" was propoaed on Euclid Streat going nortY~ and Ur~e altor~native would be to go wesL- behind the proppsed apartmenta and make two left turns, whilr~ the ather alternativQ woul~ be to crogs ovar the hospital. property; that a].thougl~ he was not a traffic engineer, starting with a~roblgm and compound.ing ii: by funneling all the traffi.c in the propaaed manner seemed to be wrong; that the Ubjective shauld be to get the traf.fa.c out ~f the area t~s ~oon as possible; that, in his opinion, La Palma Avenu~ ec~~xld handle th~ traf.Eic from ~.he d~velopment botter than Eualid Street could. r'1r. Arnerich concluded by stating they were not opposed to the development of thP ptoperty b~xt were op- posed to the density and to thE traffic pattern as suggested in the: develope.r's plans. Mrs. Joanne Cowel:,., 951 Fairview Street, Anaheim, ~ppearod before the Cammission in opposition to subject pe~itions ana stated she r~epresented some of. the home- owners in the area; that she had been interviewed by The Bulletin, and she was guoted as being ~pposed ta the subject development; that tiroug her attendance at an advisory meeting at the elementary school she learned about the pr posed development; that the big pxoblem was the iiensityt that the intersection in her area was very congested; ~hat a California Motor Vehicle facility was ].ocated to the east of the subject area which was a13o congested with people lined up even dura.ng non-l.icensing perinds; that the residents would like the Planning Commission to consider a buffer. zone at the perimeter of the subject prnperty by placi.ng single-family homes at the perimeter, then having the various condo- miniums, the apartments, etc.; that she would likP to ask the Planning Commis- sion if they had really had a chance tu study the development and ta evaluate i.t along the thinking of the adjacent property owners who had been in the area for approxi.mately 15 years. She presented the Commissian with a copy of the Anaheim Newsletter which surveyed the problems in the City and she stated that the peopl~ were against the overcrowdinq that was coming into ttie area; that the developments were getting completely away from the singZe-family dwelling concept; that the subje~~t devel.oper would develop the project and then move back to Upland, leaving the problems for the residents; tha~t presently there was one crossin~ guard at F'almouth and another ~ne would be needed if fihe project was constructed; that she questione~ who would pay about $60,000 for a condominium home in an area tha".. did not warrant that price; that she had reviewed the condominiums in Anaheim an3 the surrounding areas and they were sellinq for $20,000 to $30,000 with a f.ew selling for more than that= and that because ~f the lake, the pr.operties would nat b~ worth $20,000 m~re. In concl~ision, Mrs. Cowell ~tated i.f the Planni.ng Commission would consider a buffer to the westerly and southerly tracts, the development would not affPCt the existing property owners as much. Mr. Ben Bay, 2148 W~3t Grayson Stteet, Anaheim, appeared before the Comanission in oppas~tion to subject petitions and stated h~ Iived near Grayson and Lotus, west of the proposed development; that he had really nothing against planned communities other than what had been previously stated, with the buffer zone idea between the development and the tracts t~ the 3outh snd ~aestf that regard- i ing traffic density on Coro:~et, Falmouth and Romneya, approximately Gwo ye~rs • MINU'rES, CITY PI~A~V'NxNG COhiMLSSION, Fabruar.y 20, 1974 74-•107 GENE1tAI, PI,AN AMENDMENT N0. 130, ENVIRONM~:NTAL IMPACT R~PORT NO. 113, RNn RECLASStrICATION NU. 73-74-^36 ~(Continued)i______,.______~_,,,~-- ago the (:ity Counail ignorAd ~ho pl~oa8 of thb rasidente to have t~ traff~.c eign+~l at Falmoutl~ anrl Brookhuret, ~nd tho C:L~y Council rQply was that; that i.ntersectian waa too closo to Brookhuret and I,a Palma an~ would back up the trnffic off thos~ lights~ Ha diacussed the ~raF~ic situation in mora dotail and etated he c71d not under~tand why th~re was ~not mare accose to tha south of the eub~ect dav~lr.pment and why aandominiuma were ba~ked up t~ the R-1 tracta. Ho Purther s~tated that he did not ttiink th~ park wrauld ev~~: be developed. C:hairman Gttuer noteci that the Parks and Recraation Commie~ion and th~ City Council had gone on record that they would purahase thg park land within one year, and Nlr. Bay atated rhat land miqht bo need~d to enlarge .7o11n P~lar~hal,l Schoal to handle tha children from the proposed d~velopment. Mr. Hay contiriued by stating he would like to address a].e~ter to Arigham Yourig Universtty ayainst the pr.oposed development on aubjact property; that the residenta had not foreseen the ~ype of deve~opmant being proposed; that he was not ayainst the en~ire development but w~s ~gainst the draj.nage, traffic, and other problems which it would generate. Mi~s. A. Caetello, 1235 North Holly Street, Ar~aheim, appeared hefore the Commis- sion and stai:ed she had prepared a list of pros and con3 ai the development; that ahe had lived in her home fnr 18 years and her children went ta John Marshall Sch ~1~ L•hat it seemed to her that the paople were building up griev- ances concerning traffi.c problems and false prnmises that were given wtien they purchased their homegt that the gxievancee were no~ sa much againet the d~vel- oper as they were against the City of Anaheiznt that to her knowledge, an addi- tional California Motor Vehicle fac:ility w~s ache~ uled to be c:on~:r.ructed at Valencia and Euc~id in Fullprton to alleviate the problem referred to in ~he subjeat area; that she was in favor af the propcsed programt that there might be tra£fic problems but, in time, those problems might be solved even if there was some difficult,y, and the people could not get away fr~m progress; that the people were projecting ttieir fear of what had not yet materializPd~ and that th~ proposed development woul.d improve the surrounding properties and she did not intend to movP as she fElt .it was a good thing. ;~r. Chuck prentice, Princi.pal of John Marshall School, app~ared before the Commissi~n and stated he was neither for nor again3t the su}~ject development and r.hat he was at the he3ring L•o impart i.nformation contai.ned in a letter written by Nlr. James Arier, Superi.ntendent o~ the :~naheim City Schocl District, which was addressed to the Planning Cammission. Thereupon, Mr. Pr:~ntice read said letcer from Mr. Brier which indicated that the p~esent school in the area would no~ be adequate to handle the students generated from the pr~posed devel- opment and it would be nECessary to transfer pupils to other. schools; and, in the event the apartments w~re m~~?~~ -~vailable to families, the pr~blem woi~ld be compuunded. Mr. Prentice presc,~.ted said letter to the ?lanning Conunission Se~retar~ £or filing. J.n rebuttal, Mr. Marti,~ stated il~ai the developer was concerned about all the concerns mentioned by the resiilents in the area; that regarding traffic, tt~e Fore~t Lawn representatives Y~ad created the impression thai: people who would live in the prQposed developmen*_ would filter khrough the single-family areas to find access to the main strPets; that the developer's feeling was tha~t the people in the project ~ould use Romneya Dr~ve sinre it had Free movement op- posed to the other streetsj that an extension of Romneya Drive was proposed out to La Palma Avenue; that the developer's preferenc~ would atill be to havE a ring road within the project, however, City Staff had indicated it wa.s neces- sarv to have an opportunity for the residential area to exit into the projeGt as a meana to al~eviate some problems; that the traffic p~ttern prop~sed was designed by the City Traffic Engineer and the enoinPer for the developer; that with experience the groposed traffic pattern would probably prove ~o provide the relief that was suggested; and that it was not desirable to have traffic going through the medical center ar.ea. He further stated regarding people-~o- buffer-people, aa sugqested by Mrs. Cowell, that a band of single-family dwell- inqs on the weat woald not actually serve as a buffer in the real sense; that the d~nsity ut the entire praject was approximately 8 dwelling units per acre; that in a typical sinqle-family dwelling there were 3.~5 people per ~iwelling unit and there were 2.2 people per dwelling unit in ths proposed developmpnt; • e MIIVUT~F3 r CI'l'Y :~T~ANNING COMMIS:iTUN ~ FHbx'U~lry ZO ~ 1974 ?4-~108 GLNERI~L, i~LAN AMI:N~M~NT NU. 130, ENVIRONMENmA1~ IM1~ACm REPURT NA. 113, AND ItECLA5S.IFZCATION N0. 73-74-36 (Continuecl) _ _ .__. that in actudllty, the pro~osed praject would tiave nbout the same numbc~r. of people crecupying a unit o~ lancl as a eingle-family dwellinq~ that in ctecardance with ths City oxdinar~ce, no two-etory unite wauld re within 150 feet o~ ad~oin- ing ging~.e-family residential. prapertiest that in ragarc9 to the+ price af the condominiume, the propoeal was nat the oamo as th~e typ~ generally b~ing ~ffared, that thi.s w~auld be among th~a finer and bettor. proj~*c~e~ with more amenitiQS~ that regardi.ng poss.i.bla drownings in the ~aku, he stated it was unf~rtunate to usa that in an inflammatury manner ii. r<~lati.onship t~ the propoealt that most of thA chi].dren who had drowned had sl:~ ~ned in~-~~ arairiage ditchasr that i:he dwelling unit~ were ~epar~ted from the ~1.~+, Itowever, many p~~~plo would observe the lake area which would be better ttia,, an arti.Pici.al ~afety devica. Mr. Ghristi.anaon atatad *.hat the traffic ~xobleme had been takeri care of by t'~e Tref.fic Enginesr; that tt-e insurance compAny would raquire adequate gafequards regarding the laket and that the individual who spoke concerning the buffer zone forc tile reaidentia) Properties did not live adjacent to the sub~ect propQrty. Mr. David Reed, 914 Fairvie~,~ Street, 11n~,hei.m, appeared before th~ Commisaion and stated he was n~sither for nor again~t the ~xopogal• t-at it appearod that sahoo~ far.ilities sheuld be tak~ri into cansideratiun in the plans and not ~vait until there was a problem; that t}~e traffic plana seemed to be somewhat in- adequate as thexe ~r+ould be con£licta to the east and wer~t= that planning should be made far the total set of services that tho people liuing in the development woulcl neeci; that wher~ he lived ~.here was inadequate storm draina; ~ha~ the develapment should be master planned as a packagP and binding~ whether i~ wo~uld be aonstructed i,~ parts cr as a tvholet and that the exhibits and plans shoulc3 also be binding. THE PUBLIC HEARIIVG WAS ~LOSED. Commissioner King inquired if. Mr. Chriatiansen had any camment regarding the reference in the Staff Repor~ concerning the inadequate trash collPCtion area and l1r. ChristiansPn stal:ed the pr~posed devel~pment would be subject t~ further specific plan review and the plans seen at this time were concept plans of what they i.ntended to doi that the developer recognized that there was not suxficient room for t11e trash trucY.s, hnwever, the s~reets were private ~~reets; and that the5 wo~:ld not receive approval to build until thoae pr~blems were sat9.sfied. In reply to queationing of Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Christiansen stated it wa~ projected that the development wou.ld be completed within three to fi.ve years depending upcn the sales; that th.e lake would be construct~d first, along with the other amenitie~ and the str~etsj that the mabilehome cnmmunity F~auld be developed in the beginning also to ~erve as a buffer between the development and the freeways that the developer w~ul~ be .investing a great deal o.f maney into the project and cotild not construct somet,hing that would not ~ell; that there was no product available such as they would b~ building an@ there was a need; and that a lot of. mor.ey would bn put "up front" and i~ the subdivision plans. He further explained the constru~tion of t2ie development would probably bc~gin with the mobilehome communi.ty, the lake, and then the models aro:and the main lake which would be a Connec~ic:ut-style fishiz~g village on the south por- tion. He stated tha~ ~he median strip of the atreet runni.ng north from the southerly portion of subject property weuld 1-,e muintained by the project; that ~there would be three subdivisions, apartments, and an office park; that they were not certain regarding the awnership of the pro~erty which would be devel- apEd as the office park; that tt~ey could have a lot of develogment in process at ~ne time; and that all of the dedicated straets would go in at the same time and the priva~e streets would go in ag the subdivisians were constructed. Commissioner Johnaon noted that the initial presantation indicated that the schools we:e more than adequate in the area, however, the principal of John Marshall ~lementary School waa indicating they were not adequate. In reply, Mr. Christi.ansen stated there werc~ more ~chools in the area than ju~t the slemsntary school; tha~ there was also the parochial school, Anaheim High School and otherst th~. hz did not say there was no problem, but that ths sch.ools could handle the children; that it was indicated the Jc,hn Mar~hall ~ w ~ MINUTEa, CITX PLJINNING CUMMZ:38TUN, Febr.uary 20, 1974 74-109 GENERAL PL,AN AME~NpMENT N0. 130, ENVIRONMENTAL SMPA~'T REPURT N0. 113, AND RECLAaSIFICATION NO. 73-74-36 (Conti.nua~~ _ _ _ __ School could not h+~ncllc~ ell of the 40 children p~r ,year genQreted by the project, t~owever, th~y could take care o.f aome oE ~hemi that at the 8or~rd af Education meol:ing it w~s stated the schoola w~uld nat have to aanatruct any new alasaroams but tharA woul.d be the poss~ibi].ity that: they miqht have to bus e].emer-tary schooi childreii and tt wou~d cost th~ Dis~rict moze thAn ;just ttie coat o~ the buseat ~.haL• the high echools were happy to hee-r they were going t~ be ~uppli.ed wlth maro childr.en and th4re would probably be more high aohool age children rdther than e].ementary age ch.i.ldren in th9 Fro;jectt and there wza always r~ problem when there was g~.owth. ~:ommisei.oner Nerbst inquired if it would not be tr~ae t.hat with R~l, 7200-equare foot lota, probably more children would be generateu chsn with the prAposed development. Upon inquirieg of Chairman GAUer, Mr. Christiansen etA~ed the pr~ojact w~uld bo spending approximate].y $200,000 in in-lieu fees. Commisaioner Farano noted that the Staff Repori; indi.cated the daily traffic would be 23,OQ0 ADT for La Palr~~~ Hvenue and 33,000 for Euclid Stkeet, and he waa interested to know the respective capaci~ties of those two at•reets. Office Engineer Jay Titus advised that City straets such t~a Euclid and La Palma should .handle axound 300 veh.iales per lane pr:r haurt and that Eu~lid hxd two lanes in each diractiun. Connnissioner Farano then nnted that 33~000 ars for Eucli.d Street would be peak for. approximately 11 hourg per day; that th~ 33,~U0 cars was inc~ic~ted on the traffic counter in 1972 and ~his was a comfortable capacity; ~hat if. the street was crowded, twice thP 33,000 could probably be reached in a pEak condi~ion; and that 300 vehicles per hour per lane was an average comfartable condition on a st.reet. Office ~ngineer Jay Titus advised he did not know where the figures were ob- tained that were provided in the Staff Report; that witli five to six vehicle trips per day per unit, there v~ou].d be 6,000 additional vehicles per day distribured to Euclid Street and La Palma. Avenue. Mr. Gene Scott, representir~g Er~vista, Inc., 125 Claadixia 5treet, Anaheim, appearPd b~fore thp Commissio:~ and referred to Appeni~ix A-1 of the Enviro:imental lmpact Report which provided some staL•istical information regarding traffic which h1d been compared with City figures and verified by the Traffic Engineer. He further stated that th~ increase in traff3.c would be betwewn 8 to 18$; that the Tra£fic Engineer had expressed that the impravements to Euclid ~treet would increase its carrying capacity and that Mr. Kimmel had stated the streets in the vicinity were capable of ha.ndling the added tra£fic l~ad. Cornmissioner Farano computed the traffi.c in the area to he slightly over 70,000 vehicles per day and notec~ t~hat he was not sure the Traffic Enginee.r had izdi- cated that informataon. Assistant :vel~gment Services Directar Ronald Thompson advised that although he was not a traff.ic engineer, he had discussed the '~.raffic prnblem with the Traffic Engineer. Mr. 7'hompson ~tated the Planning Division had been very cor~r.erned about i-.he trafiic on La Palma Avenue and on Euclid Stxeet as these were both primaxy four-lan,s highways with left-turn pocketst that th~e two high- ways could be increased +~ six-lane capacity and wsre capable o~ handling th~ traffic, however, the iracersections were the bottleneck and th~ problem was not between ~ignals but at the intersections; that in analyzing the EIR and the geriodi.cal Anahe~.m traffic census and actually counting ~rips per day for vara.- ous residential. developments, the Traffic Engineer was ~f the opinion there was adequate carrying capacity to accommodate this particular developn+ent as wpll as being adequate for handling the intersectior-sJ and that the major bot~le- necks near the freeway cvere to be alleviated shortly by the revision of the ramQs. • ~1 ~ MZNU'I'}:;S, CITY PLANNICIG COMMISSTQN, F~bruary ~0 , 1974 7a-iio GENERN., PLAN }1MisNnMENT NO. 130 ~ ENViRONN1ENT~. 'LMFACT REPORT NO , 1].3, AND R~CLASSIFICATION N0. 73-74-36 ~Cantinuatl) ,,,,~, . - -__ _~~_...~........~..-r-..--.........-. Cpmmiaaionar Faxana noted that tno Plmnniny Commieeinn wna ch~rgefi with the roaponeibility f.or dociding if the traffic flow was adRquate for the var.louA d~evelopments. Ha inguir~d if St~ff was awar~ of any uneolvc~d matte.re other than those n-entioned in relationsh.i~p i:o the traeh collecti~oxt and the private strQets, whiah wou].d }iave to come back tu thQ Planning Cammiasinti. Mr. Schvrartze adviaed that as any problom developed, the developer woiil.d ba comin,q bar,k to th~ Planninq Cammisr~ion, and also precise plana would be pres~en~ed a:. a later date. Ueputy City Attorney Frank Lowzy advised that this proj~ct would be handl~d in the same mnnner as the Anah~im Hills pr.ojc~ct, with preciso plans hoing presented on each individuAl project within the developmont, ~,nd would have to confcrm to the site development Qtandarda and the overal]. pln ing ~~ was being presented in t.he concept plans at thie meeting. Commissioner Farano stated he recall~d a iiumber of ch~ngea that had come about in the Anaheim Hilla devel~pmez~t as ecnnomica dictsted. In r~alation to the proposed development, he inquir~d how clos~: wauld thP developer come to the renc3ering being presented and how could ~he Commission be assured that the plans would not be changad by economics and a~her factor:~. Mr. Christiansen stated he did not know what would come up in the future; that the developers were presently talking about a concept and not a specific p].an for the are~ and that each o£ the project~ within the development would have the safeguard built in by the City ordinancesf that they would b~ able to stick to the plan and as far as he knew there would be n~ vari~tion from it sirica they did nat anticipatE any changes. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised in conneci:fon with Mr. Christi.anaen'~ stat~ments, that a concept was a natural plari of development; that the elements of the general plan of develapment were discussed in the Staf~ Repoxt; that as th~ developer was ready to begin flnalizing each segment ~f iche development, they woul.d come back 'to the Planninq Commiesion and the City C~uncil; that a canditional use permit would be required to be filEd for the mobilehome cam- munity, as well as a site devel~pment plan; that regarding the townhouse devel- opment, tentative tract maps and precise plans for each phase would have to be submitted; and precise plan3 would als~ he rec~uired for the office park proiect. He further. stated that the Planning Cummission would nave an opportuni~y to view more detailed plans on the entire development at a later ciate. Commissioner Herbst noted for the Commissi~n ~hat the Traffi.c Engineer had explained in discussion that Brookhurst Street was in the pr.ocess of being im- proved and it wauld he].p the existing residential area with egress and ingress to their properties. Mr. Titus advised there was a bottleneck at Brookhurst Street near the inter.- section of the freeway and the State would be modifying the on and off-ramp~ to the freeway and realign both of the l~cal stxeEts ta asstst the flow of traffic; and that he was not up-to-date on the schedule, however, he was confident ~these modifications would be clone within the next year. Comtr.issioner Herbst nated the traffic flow was onP of the ~oncerns of the exist•- ing resid.ents since they ~erz already havin~t trouble getting out on Brookhurst Street, and the Santa Ana Freeway had vreated ma2iy prob]~ms. Co~nissioner Fa.rano inquired if the overpass uver the freeway would be widened, and Mr. Tit~~s advised that mainly the on and off-ramping of the freew~y wauld be aligned to aid the flow of traffic. Commi.ssioner Farano z~oted that the problem seemed to be the off-ramps at Bro~khurst Street and La Palma A~enue and the manner in ahich they came off onto the lacal str.e~ts. ~ • MINUT.ES, CT,TX PLANNING ~OMM~SSYQN, February 20, 1974 74-1.11 GEN~fiAL Pt~RN 11NiEND~~iF;NT N0. 130, ENVIFbDNM~NTRL IM}?ACT REPORT NO. 113, AND RECLASSIFICA~'ION N0~ 73-74-36 (Cantlnued) Upon i.nquiry o.f. Corm,~iBSioner King~ Mr. Prentice stated the inform~tion con- ta~.ned in tha letter from Mr. Brier wae truo~cl on a nina-month operationt thet ~t pr~eant 875 students woro enrolled at ~'oY~n M~rshall School, thR enrollment waa docre~aing, and prec~ently they h~cl about thrae empty classr.ooms. Commissioner Herb~t r~oted that the concept could ehangQ ovc~r the yeara anrl the develo~?ment could become a housing pxoject with a lat of childrent L•hr~t the Commiesion woule1 have no gua~rantee that the cancept would remaint fi.he~t the only people who would have some contr~l. would be ~he people who lived in the project; thar. the concept wae prnbably one of the finest that h+ad beon seen far Anaheim, with the amenities tlnat would be conet,ructe~lt however, he wanted s~me assurance that ~he R-2 developmant would not be develoned witt~ 18 units per acre, which could hap~on~ khat he would ask the peti.tioner t.~ stipulate that the ovexall dansity of the d~vo~opment would not exceed 12 un3.ts per ~crej that there were a~:eas accordinq to the plan whore ~he denaity could be reduced; that througho~~t the United States ~he best planned communities tiad k~etween S and 10 unita per. acrP anrl where the densities were hiqher, the i~ecegs~ry ameni- ties were providedi that. in his opinion, the mobilehome cammi~nity was in a good lo~ation aince it would bo isolatedt and that the apartment house density could prabab].y be ioduced, nat to e~ec~ed the 12 unity per acre. Mr. Christiansen stated that a c~nunitment to reduce the densit~ would be ex- tremely d~fficult, as they had already reduced the development somewhat; and that a reduction in relation to ths coat of the lan~l inight not be profitab~e. Commissicner Herbs~ noted that he knew the puxchasE priCe wh:ich was many thou,sand dollars lesa '~han the market value todayp and that if the requested reduction could not be mac~e, perhaps the price was too high. rir. Christiansen stated by the time tlie tentative tract maps and pre~ise plans were ready, he was sure he could make the reductiiari and, t~~ereu~on, he s~tipu- lated that the entire project wauld not exceed 12 residential dwelling units ~er acre. Co~nissioner Herbst further noted that he did not think *.he proposal should be any difEerent in density than any other planned community that had been' approved. Mr. Ttob~rts advised that Mr. Martin had indicated he would be interestPCi in changing the concept plans to indicate the 12 units per acre pri.or tn Gity Council zeview, if. this would be the Planni:~g Commission's desire. Commissioner Farano stated the proposal waa an exce].lent project and one of the best, if not the best, to come before the Planning Commission; however, he would bN inclined to want to sep where the pr~ject would be reduced; that t;iis project was no different from the project at Walnut and ~erritas; i.ha~, in his opinion, with the surroundiz~q area and the type of activities that presen~tly ~xisted at Euclid 5treet and La Palma Avenue, it wE~t without saying t.hat r.he praposed development would 4ubstantially affc~ct the traffic flow, populatiun and activity in the area, and it was too much to inject into the area. Commissioner Herbst noted for. i:tie Cammission that the groperty was erin~~ ~ly planned f~r a college which would generate more traffic, in his opinion, than the proposal; that it the property was devel~ged with 5 single-fami?-~ dwelling units per acre, which would be considered law den~ity and average l:.ving units, more traffic would be gEnerated; tr.at the Planning Camznission should pu~ the development into proper perspective; that the property had the right to develop and traffic would be g~nerated no mati:er what was developedt and 'the Tratfic Engineer had assured him that the traffic ix~ the area could be adequately handled. ~ Commisaioner Herbst offered a motic,n~ s~cflnded bx Co~r~zniss~oner King and MOTION CARRTED, that the Planning Commisaion r~commends that the City Gouncil cer~ify co having reviewed and cansidered the information cantained in Environmental Impact Report No. 113 and that the final EIR has baen completecl in c~mpl~anc~ with the Califarnia Environmental Quality Act and the State of California. ~ ~ ~ M~NUTES, CLTY PLANloING COMMIS3ION, Februax,y ?.0, 1974 ~a-iiz GL~NFRAI, PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 130, ENVIRONMEI~TAL 'LMPACT REPORT N0. 113, AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 73-74-36 (Continuad) _,_____"~ ~...~, Commi.ae~.tondr :~erb~t offer~d Resolution No. PC74-43 and maved fcr its peA~aaqe an3 +adoQtion to r~commend ta ttia Ci1:y Council thdt Gan9ral Plan Amdndment No. 130 be approved su~;}ect C~a ;:ho stipulation by the petitioner that the deneity ~f the over.all pr,~ect ahall not exceed 12 reaidential dwe?ling unita ~er aarp ai.nae thi~ deneity was impoaed on other plnnn~d communit~ae in the City with eaic~ mo~iific:ation boing incorpoXated in tha plana prior t~ City ~ounci]. reviewt and sub~ect ta conditi~ne. (Sea RQSOlution Baok) On ro].1 call, the foragoing reaolution wag paasad k~y the f~llowing vote: AXES: CQMMIaSION~RS: Comptc,n, Herb~at, Johnaon, King, Morley, Gauer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ABSENT: COt~IMIS9i0NERS: None. Commieaioner Herbst o~fared Rosolution No. PC7a-44 and moved for ita passac;e and ada~tion to reeommend to the City Council that 1~~tition ~c~r Reclaesific~- 1:ian No. 73•-74-36 be approveci sub~ect to the pro jec~ being develap. d precisely in accordance with the piesentatton to the Planning Commission and the stipu- lation by the petitioner that tho density o£ the averall projec~ would no~ exceed 12 restdential dwelling units p~r ~cre with said modificatian being incor~nrated in the plans prior ~o City Council review; and sub~ect to aondi- tions. (See Re~olution Aonlc) Coannissioner Farano reiterated hi.s concern that h~ would like ~o xeview the changes prior to tha Citx Cauncil review aind 3tat~d the dPV~eloper could make many other changes such as tra£fic pat~terno iri connection with the reduc~ion of the density~. Upon inquiry of Cha'.rman Gauer, Mr. Roberts adviaed that ~he procedurE for precise plans did not requir.e public haaring= and that uther than a conditional use permit for ~he m~bilehome communityr the other mattera would come to tY~e P'lanning Co:nmiasion under :teports at.~i Recommendations . ~~halrman Gauer noted that if theze were any changes to the plan, a publio hearinc~ would be required. On roll cail~ the for~going resolution was passed by the Eollowing v~te: A'IES: COMMISSIONERSs Comptor., Herbst, Johnson, King, Morley, Gauer. NAES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Mr. Roberts advised the foregaing petitions wokld be c~nsidered by the Ci.ty Council ~t ano~her public hearing and the residents in the area would bp r~cei_ving a gub].ic he~tr_ing na~ice regar3irig same. RECESS - Chairman Gauer cieclared a ten-minut~e receas at 10:20 p.m. RRCONV~NE - Chairman Gauer reconvened the me~ting at. 10:30 p.m. with "' Commissioner Johnson being absent. ~ ~ ! MINLTI'ES, GITY PLANNING COMM73SION, February 20, 1974 74-:L1J REPORTS AND - I~EM NA. 1 R~COMMENpATIONS E~~~~CATION N~J. 72-73-10 - Requeet for ~pprov~,1 " af. preuise pl.an~ - Property baing a~n ir.xeg~il.ar,ly- shapod p~rc:g]. of land containing approximat~ly 28.1 acres having frontages af approximately 614 feei: on the weat ai3e of Walnut Str~et ~nd apprnximately 12Q5 ~eet an the north side .~f Cerri~oe Ave~ua, and b4ing lncaked at ths ~nbrthwFSt cor.ner of Cerri~oR Avenue and Walr-ut Streat. Assir~tant Z~ning SupsrviAOr Philli~. Schwartzc~ read the Staff Ra~port to the Commiasi.on clated Fsb.ruary 20, 197d, and ~za.~d Staff iteport ia reforred to as if oeti farth tn full in the minutee. He noted ~or th~ Commiesion thmt dt the ~eeting uf December 27, ].973, the Commiesion inc?ic~tea it would not approv~ the prQCise p].ana for. th,c devolopmer~t of the remair.der af subject proper~.y unti]. such time as the problem zelating to the w~Cex mRin~ tor recorded Tract No. 7945 had been resaluedr and tha~ the Building Division indicat.ed that khe water main h~d now been relacAtea i.neide the t:ract and the matter was resQlved~ and that ~he pet~Cioner was now reque~~ting approval of the precise plans for the northwest, snutY~west an~l soixthea~~ qiiadrax~ts which were coverQCl by Tentative Tra~t Nos. 7946, 7947 and 7948. Upon quastioning of Commiasi~ner flerbst, Mr. Schwartze t~dvts~d that ~e plans being submitted at this timQ were substantially in conformance with th~se originally considered by the Planning Commissi.on, ~nd that no substan- ~ial change~ had been made to said plans~ and that among the excEptiona were tihat the developez w~ta iiidicating the unita would have more tvood aiding r~nd leas st••:co than was shown on the original plans, arid th~ precise plans indicated a medium shake roof as opposed to ~ aha.ke roaf a~ ~hown on th~ or~ginul elevation plans. Commissioner FarFtna made an observatior~ that the plans were subatantially in conformance with the plans which the Planninq Commissa.on orig~.nally dis~- approved, and thdt approval of the precise plans would be ax~ i.n-part a~proval oi what the Commission had already disapproved in tot~, with the ~xceLtions aa notc~. Commi.ssioner He;:~at stated he was still opposed to the project, even though it had been approveci by the City Councilt that he was not in favor of a proSect of this density in the subje~t area= that the d~nsity was one ot the concerns of the Commiasion at the time of the public tiearingj and that he concurred in Cormnissioner Farano's obsc.rvation that he could not vote to approve plans which had already been disapproved. Commiasioners Compton and Morley not~d for the Commission that they c'id not ieel they were qualifi~d to vote an the matter and, thereupon, req~zested to ab~taYn trom v~ting. Commissioner Farano affered a mo~ion, second~d hy Commissioner He~rbsh, that the precise plans, ~s submitted in ccr~nection wi~h Reclassif.i.cation No. 72~73-10, k~e disapproved on the basis that said precise plans reflect sub- stantiaily the same plans which were disapproved by the P lanning ~ommission az~d remain unaltered in concept ax~d in prir..^.iple. TiZe foregoinq motion carried ~ the following vo~te: AYES: COMMISStONERS: Herbst, Farano, Gauer. NOES : COMMTSSIONERS : N~ne . AASTA7N: COMMISSIONE RS: Cornpton, King~ Morley. A85ENT: COMMISSIONERa: Johnson. ITEM N0. 2 TENT.ATIVF TRACT Nn. 8220 - Wall treatment plar.s - Property consisting of an irregular].y-shaped parcel of approximatFly 83 acres of land having a frontage of appraximately 3821 feet on the nort~: aide of Canyon Rim Road and a maximum depth ~f approximately 1310 feet, the westerly property line beinq approxi- mately 1974 fee~ east of the centerlin~ of Nohl Ranch Road. ~ ~ MZNU'I'~:5, CI~TY PII~NNI, . Cc)MMISSIpN, Fobrunry 20, 1~74 74-lld rTFEt N0. 2 (Ccntinue3) Aaeiatant Zoni:~g Supc~rvieor phillip Schwart~e p•rc~~~ntod the~ Skaff RepurL to the '~nmiae+i.nn dat~d February 20. 1974, and baid Staf!' Report ie ref~r~ed to nn~. rnade a pert af the minutee. Mr.. Schwai~t2o notmd thnt. the wall ~r~stmc~nt plane were submittud pureua~nt t~ a condit.i.or. of. +a~pr~vel uf thQ tinal apoc~ifia ~~nns ror d~vAl.opment of thp Aub;ject pz~opart;-. Co~mni~,~i.anor Hc~rbnt affer•ed a moti.on, secc~r~dPd by Commis~ioner King, and MOTZON CI-RhIED tliat tt~~e fAnae plans, as ~ubmitt•3d, bo ~ppioved aubja~t io th~ unconstructed wall~ a,t the intorseci:i.an of Canyon Rim Raad arid the streo~:~ J.e~ding in~o the e~p,}c~-+~ tra~t cAn~'orming to t;he mctinument sign set-~ back roc~uir9ments oi tho ~roposed Sic~n Ord:lnanr.e roviaion. ITEM N0. 3 ~"R'~Q3~~ F~R CLAr I FICATIC)K OF 1tF:QUII3~:A FARKINC SPl1CES AND ATSI~E WIIYrHS - Min; -Warehouses - Pr~pe~ty located nt tha n~rthweat carnpr of Placentia ~~~nue and the Ri.verside ~'reewa~~ . At~aist-ar.t Zonin~ Sup~rvisor Phil.l.ip Schwartze presantecl ~he Statf Repor.t to the P].ann:.ng ~ommission dated Febr~iAry 20 , 19'14, and said Staf.f Raport ia referred to ancl made a part oi the minutea. Commissianer. Iierbst r.o~ed from the standnoint of parking, it m~.ght be tk~at the parking requirements were too great f l~owever, many "mi.~,ii-warehouses" w~re ~~~- i.ng uui.l~ and cont~iclPrati~n ~hatild Y~e given to ~,-e fac~ that they might be converted to amaller ir.~clustrial plants. Cnmmiasioner. Far~na nated that some cantractors wo~k out: o~ minf--warehouses a.nd were gtoring thr~ir tool.s therein* that th~.s type epace was ~~~onomica].ly feasible for the busJ.ness~man juat starting out. C'ommissic~ner Herbst further. no'ted ~hat if ~ome of the ~nside wall. v~er.e k.nocked out, anything was possible, but where would the em~loyee~ park. Mr. ScY-waxtze n~t~d tha~ several Orange County CitiRa had been po~.'lea £Ur information concerning their requirements in connPCtion with r^:.r-i-warehous~s nnd the general consensus rey.zrding conv~r~i~n to industrial uses was ~hat lo~ica~.ly the building~ would h-ve to be torn down tu make roar'- ior more park- ing, if necNss~zy. Com¢nissioner L'.~~Ybst sf.atpd the Commisai~n certainly would not wan~t t:1e mini- warehouse operator ~ to get the idea that L-hey could provic~e autside storage for items such as haats, automobile3 , etc. ; that the aul~ ject property hat~ visihi]_ity frun the F;.eew~y arid nothing coula bP hidden fron~ that ~~iP~ ~. Cr,mmissi.qner Faraao made an observation that the parking requirements being ~mi;oged wez~e not really to~ much. CommiESioner Ht~rbst stat::d that ttie matter shoald have a pu!~)ic ~~earing in orde~- tY.at some ~tip~ilations c.oulci be souqht from the applicant regarcling an}~ conv~rsion. In rep!.y to questioning of Chairman Gauer, Mr. Schwartze advis~:d that others had normally requ~eted ~ waiver ~f permitted parkingi that some facilities had a grea~ deal of aquare footage but were ytatin~ ~he parking requirements were too high; tnat xather thr~n 64 parking spaces, t.ieX might reques~ to rave 10 parking space~; an~i that the p~rking was normal.ly laid out cn a per.ipheral arrangemer-t . 7,oning Supervisor Charlea F.obsrts quoted a case in point which was uaing t2ae required pa:king spa~~ea for outdoor atorage, and Commission3r Herbst rsit~rated that the facila.ty bexnq considered h1d tl~e exposure to thP freeway, ~~he~reas tY.e fac:ility mentxo. ed t~y Mr. Rober.ts 3ic~ not. s • MTNUTE3, CITY PL~ANNING COMMISSION, Februexy 20, 1974 /4-115 ITEM NU. 3 (Cont.inuedl .~s~i.stant Devdlopmdnt ~ervicea Uirector Roneld 'thompaon noted for th9 Commis- si~n thmt there wae not enough alec~trical utillt}~ f:or c:onveraion oE the mini- war~hous~~ t~ other u~a~. He ~aggested that an agrQement could be r~corded that in the ~vent tha use w+s ~, ~nverted, parkina would heve to be provided that wnuld not be in front o~ tha wnrohou~e cloor.~. Cammieaioner. Herbbt inq~airad if tihe Devoloprnent Servicoa Staff was notifi~d when requ~ate we~re made for c~lectrical power at fscilitieg such as a n-ini- warehouse, and Mr. TY~nmp~on adviaed in the neqativF and stated ik wae not legitimata to corivert tl~oae facilitie~ to m~nufac.-,ixinq uap~. Comniseioner Herbst stated he would like to tia hi n,,rc~un~ent to ~~~e el.ec~rical pc~wer faator. H~ furi:her etated he would like tc.~ see tho petitioner conform to M-l. Zone development standarde in ~:hH normal mariner, or that th~ matter ba set for publia heari.ng if. the petitioner: s~ dc~sir~~it tha~ the platts did not sa~isfy the M-~1 Zone requiremants and a request for dhvia~ion would require a pL~lic hearing. Comm.igsioner Farano noi:~sd that ho was not tao sure he would appr~ve a varianct~ in this situation. Commissioner Herbst offer~d a motion, seconcled by Coruntesion::r. Mor].eX and MOTION ~N1tf,I~.D (Commissi.oner Johnson baing absent) th~.t since the plans in3t- ~ating parking for the 3~ibj~~t use do not conform to the development standardr~ of the M-1 Zone that Sta~Ef be and hereby 3.s directed tc so advise the peti.- tioner and to further in~orm ti~e pe ~itioner that a public hearing would be r~quir~d to con9iaer ~tio r,:atter of a variancp. ITEM_ NO_ 4 CONDITIONAI, ~_^-~ 3?~RN1IT N~. 1336 - Request for approval of ~ 6-foot high soli.d masonry wall in Front setback and also reque~ t for clarification of i.nten'. af ~~de requiremente - Property canais ;ing of 10 acres locaterl at the northwest carrrer af State College Boulevar~ and Wagner Avanue . ZAninc Supervisor Charles Robarts preaented the Staf.f Report to the Planning Commiss~on dated Fel~ruary 20, 1974, and said StaEf Report is reterred to an~Y made a part of the minutes . He noted that in the request the peLitioner had stated a solid wall was desired for noi.ae pr.otection, and that Rtaf.f was requesting ciarificati~n of the intent o" the allowable acreening require- ments as related to multiple-family r~ei ..~.r.tial developnent and, :cpecifically, whether multiple-family resi~antial zones witti "front-ons" ont~ an arterial highway should be permitted to ~on~truct an 8-fo~4 masonry wall betwe~n the right-of-way and t:he structure. He continued tt-at t~~e r~que~ted ~:creening was permitted in sinc~le--famil.}~ residential zonps as a me~ans uf retaining residential environraen4:~ Chairman Guuer off.ered a m~tion, secc,nded by Co;nmissionEr Farano and MOTIO~1 CARRIED, that requ~st for approval to cc~nstruct a 6-font. high aolid masonry wall in the fr.~nt ~etbar.k of subject multiple-family resi.dential developmenr.. :ahich has "iront-on" uni ~, on State Co.l~ ege Bo~ileva:rd, be and hereby is ap- proved since ~t.he r.equested screening would aPrve :.he same Nurpose for retain- ir.y residential environment in a multiple-fami.].y xesidEntial devela~ mer.t as for a sinql~~family residential development. ADJOURNMENT - Th~re being no turther busines~ to discuss, Cormia+~ioner ' Herast offexed a motion, seco;ld~cl by C~mmi~qi.onei ~•icr'ley and MOTION CA1tRIEi:, to adjourn the me.:t.in!, to 6:30 p.m. on I ebruary 25 ,?.974 , at the Anaheim Hil ls Coinplex. The meetinq adjo~•rr~ed at ].1:10 ~.m. Resppc:Yully submitted, -~~:~.:~..~ r3. ~.~ ..~,.~ Patricia B. Scanlan, Secrer i.r~ Anaheim Ci~y Pla;zninq Commissic-n PAS :11m