The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1974/05/130 E C 0 MICROf!' MING SERVICE, IldC. , „, ~ ~ City Hal'1 Ana-heim, Californ :d May 13, 1974 1~:GULAR Mp:ETIr1G Ob' THE ANAHEIM CITY FLAN[:ING COMMI9SION RFGULAR - A regula.r meeting of thc 11~iAhcim City Planning Commission was MEETING ca11Fd to order by Chz~i.rman Gauer at '.:00 p.m. on May 13, 1y74, a quorum heing pr.c c~nt. PRF,SENT - CzIAIRMAN s Ga~~~r COdIMISSIONF1tS Compton, Furano, tierbst, Johnson, ~iinc~, Norley AASENT ~ CONIMISSlONERS None ALS.~ FFtESENT - Assiatant De~~:lopment Ser.vioes Directur: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry Office Enc~ine~r: Jay Titus Chief Building Inapoc~or: Da~~ Van Dorpe Planning Su~ervisor: D~r~ McAani~1 Zoning Supervisoz; r.harles Roberts Assistant Zoning 3up~srvieor: Phi]].ip Schwartze Associate Planners Bill v~~ing Commission Secretary: Pat a ac:anlan PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Compton led in the Pledye ~f A1legian~,e to the W" ^•GIANCE Flaci of the United 3tates of America. APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Kir,g off.erQd a motion, ~econded by Commi.ssion,sr THE MINUTES Morl.ey and MOTION CARRIEP, to approve the minutes af the meetings oE April i5 And 29 ,~.974, as sv.bmitted. I2ECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUSLIC HEARIYJG. CKARLES A. McLUEN AND DOYLE NU. 73-74-52 W. HTI~L, P. 0. F3ox 3C45, Anaheim, Ca. 92803, Ownersr DOYLE W. :3ILL, P. 0. Box 3045, Anaheim, Ca. 92803, Ager.~. VARIANCE N0. 2602 Property described as: An irr~gularly-shaped parcel of ""~"-'~' land consiatixig o~ approximatel}• 20,000 square ~eet 1~cat.:d at t.he northwest c ner of Shori: Street and Kellogg Drive. Pivperty pres~ntly clasaifiec: R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 70NE. REQUESTED CLAS3IFIC2~TION: C 1, 3ENERAL CONIMERCIAL, 70N~. REQUESTED VARZANCL': wAtVER OF MINIMUM STRUCTURAL S~TBACK FROM :1N ARTERIAL HIGHWAY TO FSTABLISH A RETAIL, COMNll..2CI~I, COMPLEX. Subject petition for reclassifi.cation was continued from the meeting of April 29, 1974, in ~rdPr that the petitioner mir,ht filP a petition fox a vari.ance on t;~e subiect ptoperty. Approximately 12 persans ind_cate:' th~ir presence in opposiLion tc subjec~t petitions. Assistant Zoning Supervi3or uhillip Schwartze read the Staff Report to the Plannina Commission dated May 13, 1974, and said Staff Report is r~ferred to as if set forth in Full in the minu~:e~. Mr. Doyle Hill, tlze petiti~ner, appearecl b~fore the Commission and described the subject progerty being a very deep gorg~ about 15 to 20 feet de~p, with two or tnree drainage ditches intersecting it, and stated that in order tn build on it, there wou13 be quite an expen::e to cover av~r the ~rainaqe ditches and to fill in and ~ake other improvements, totalling an expenditure o~ approxi- iaately $30,000 to $4~,a00; tr~~t they had p~rchased the property From the State and subsequently offered it for eaZe and over a year'a period they had had ap- proximateZy three inquiries with ini:erests ranginy from a woodworking sho~ t~ atablin~ horses; that no one wantad to build a home on the property, 74-293 • ~ Ma;NUTES, CITY PLI~NNING COMMIS~ION, May 13, 1974 7a-244 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 73-74-~2 AND VAP.IAI~c:~: N~. 26~2 (Continued) although he realized the be~st ~hing to do would be to fi~.l the lot, hoWe.'r~ it was not pract.icat to sp~nd a great amount of money to prepara a lot ta conEtruct a home on; that he believed he cou].d ma':e a at~tc~ment without contr:~diction, that no c~ne pr.epent at the memLing would want thelr home on th~ sub jer.t lot sincs it was aL~solu~el~~ not R reside~ ' al lc~t, ancl that no tender in SouthErn Cal.ifornia waul.a m~~ :ca a l~an on ~._ _ Yroper~ty for a home. Mr. tiill further stated he unaAratood d leti~er had been distributed dnor-to- doar iz~ the subject area outlining eigh~ roints of objeci:ion and he revi.ewed the list givi~~g hls rebuttal as fo]~~wa: 1) Reai:~~ntial property values i.n the area wou:~d decl.ine -- Mr. Hili • tated he disagr.~edt that he had con•- strur:ted aev~rml homts on NoLth Street acros~ from the '~MCA approximately one and ~ ltalf yaars ago and about six mantha later a Stop-and-Go Market w~s constructEd, r,owe~~~~r, the pr.operty valueE had gone from $42,U00 to $60,000. 'l) The area wa~ d~loped as a single-family resi~aenti.al ar~a and commercial development would destroy the atmospher•e which the r.~~idents moved there far -- Mr. Hill displayed some photoa of ttie subject prop~rty and atated there was vacant proper.ty at a].1 four corner.s of the in~erse~tion at Kellogg Urive and the freewayt that the property acrosa th~ street ~vas vacant and being uaed as a storage yard for one o£ the neighbors. 3) Traffir_. on an al~ready husy street would increase -- Mr. Hill stated ±hat tlze street was .lightly travelled, in hi~ opinioii, and 1s f.ar as ttie City of Anaheim was concezned~ but not ~n the opinian af the ci.tizens of Yorba Linda. 4) There were many school children i.n the area and children who rode t~sir h~rses in the area, and an increase in traffic and congestion would present an even greater danger to th~m -- Mr. Fiill stated that the proposed shopping center would no* be very large, not much ~arger than any of the homes in the ar.ea; that it would b~ a small nPighborhoc~d convenience shopping center anly; and that he did not ,,elie~~e the traffic would be vastly incrPased wii:h the number ~f. atorea being proL~esed. 5) Unce commercial shqppiny c:enters were permit~ed in the area, it would be only a matter o£ time un~il more would come - Mr. i].1 stated that would be up to the Planniiig C,~mmission to decida. 6) That ~ Planned Commercial Zone had already been set aside for a family sh pping cente~ at not a great d~stance £rom the propoaed site -- Mr. Hill statecl that in checlcing the Anaheim general. map, the proposed shop~ing center on Oran.ethorpe would be approximately three miles awa~~, as the crow flies, fr.c•n the subject site. 7) It would s~.~ve ~~s a congregation site for young people with the resultant incx~ease in noise, litter, and reckle~s driving -- Mr, Hill stated he livEd in the Westmont di.str~ct of Anahei.m whi.;h had a Stop-and-Go Market across the street f.rom the Yt4CA and next to the post office and the Adelaidc PricF Schoolj that: he had telep~loned the principal oE Adelaide Price School for an opinion regarci.inq the Stop-and-Go Market near the school and was advised tlna~ the childrer would be more of a concern to the market than ~he marks~ wauld be to the ~c,~~.. 1; that the market in th~ Westmont area had a sign that indicated only F.:ree chi].dren were allowed in the store Gt one time. 8) The administrators ~f both the elementary scho~l and the high school were opposed to the proj~~ct becaus~ of the safety factor for the youi-g children and the increased cifficulty in enforcing the closed cam~~~as poliay at the high scho~l -- Mr. Hill stated that the principal o£ the Adeiaide Price School did not agree wlth that statement; ~hat the children ti~ould stop svmewhere to get their :andy, etc., and wa.th the shopping center b~~ing approxima,-.ely ane-fourth mil+~ from the schools, the r.hildren could go there. Mr. Roger Wilson, representing the Pla~entia Unif•ied ~chool District, ap- peared be~ore the C~:nmissior_ and s!ated he wished to corrQct some of the statements made by Mr. Hill; th~t ~sneranza High School was loca~ed approxi- mately l0U yards from the p=~~pose3 commercial comple~c; that ~~ri-.-~rd Elemen- tary School was located app~oximatety 30 yard~ ~n Xellogq Drive from tihe praposecl site; that the~e distances represente~ about one block away from the schools; *_hat regarding traffic or~ the stteet, there was a 240-unit, single-family development under con~:.ructxol~ approxima=ely three blocks up the hill to the nor.theast off Kellogg Lrive and one Qf the major access streets would be Kellogg; that the post~:~l speed li~nit was 40 miles per hour ana there were nn :iosswalks and no ~+cop signs on the corner; that the District fP3t having the commercial aenter that clos~ to che two schools would en:ourage the ~tudents to stop ~ff there on the way to sahool and hang out there after scho~: xnd it wou~ci ba a bad pYan an tneir opini~n. ~ 4 • MIN~TES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, !•1ay 13, 1974 7y-'l45 RECLASSIFICAT:CON N4. 73-74-52 11ND VA1tI,ANCE N0. 2602 (Continuea) IM~. John Farriah, Principal of EgporanzA High Schoel, appeared bePore the Commiasion in opposition to 9ubject petiti.ona and xoAd r~ pr.Qpaxod lettor to the P].anning Comm~.esion. (Sai.a letter was prezented to the C~nnniasion 5ecrotary.) He further :~tated although they had ~~ closed campus, with parents' permission the atudents rauld wa~k home durinq the lunch porio~.~j th~t there wexe varioua progr.ams at the echoo'1 which wu~~].d rzllow +~ho children t~ 1e~ve tho a~t~ool at differen~ time~ of the day ~nc3 wii.h aJ l the atudent traffic, the proposed slioppiny ~~srzter would not be a good influorice far the achoolt that fi~~m past. experience, ~he Eldorado High School had a aimi~ar type stoxe wliich was even farther away fr~m that school than tha~ being pro- poaed and the principa.l c,~ that schoo'l. had recei.ved mAny ca11s from the proprietor of tl'ie store asking what could be d4ne to squelch some of the diaturbancoe at the stor~; and that baead on the foree~a•Lng evi.dence, he would hope t~iat the sub ject ~otitioris would be deniecl. Mr. Walter Marrissey, 5952 Center ~rive, Orange County, appeared before the Commission and stated he was speaking in Eavor of the s~ib~ect petition~t that h~ :~:as vcr~ fami~.i~r ~rith t~:^ ~ub~~ct prcp~rty ' L~,a~ i-~ ;~u3 al o~~~s tim~ prepared some maps ~n the prope.rty which gave ~~'_~ backgrourad informa- ti~n; but that his knowledge concerning tha propert did not mean he had ~ financial interest in it; and L•hat reyarding the ~~j~ct proporty, in his opinion, a commercial store would act•uall}~ bPnef _ the ~rea and he wou].d rather see the children gathering close ta his '.~me ratk~er than afi. the pro- posed ~happing center at Post and OrangethorpF~ Mr. Leonard Gutmann, 6022 Short Street, Y~rb Linda, appeared before the Commission and stated hi~ home was located ~nmediately adjaceiit to the sub~iect propertyt that he had s~xbmitter~ a_~tter pointing out some of the f.ac:~s conce~•ning the property and that he was ~ubmitting, at tl'~ time, a petition cc:~7taining approximately %0 signatures in prozest; and ~.l;at he. was no~t representing i:hose present in oppositiar. sitice rc~any were presen~ as individuals. M.r. Schwartz~ read the letter dated M~y 2, 1974, from Mr. Gutmann in opposi- tion, and said letter was ~resented to the Cammission Secretary. Mr. Gutmann further 3tated that the subject property was a rPmnant from tlze construction of the freeway and hac~ been sold by the State; that he under- stood Short S*.reet would be widened on the Anaheim portiori only, creating a half-stree~ in front of his home; that he could see where the childr~:n would be parking and it was not practical to reguest C-1 zoning in the subject area. Mr. Gutmann then presented a letter tron- th~ Orchard-Glenview P~~ent Teachers Association ii1 opposition to subject petition. Mr. Phil Paxton, Pl~nning Director of the City of. Yorba Linda, ~ppeared befox'~ the Commission anc~ stated he had been requested by the Yozba. Linda City Ceuncil to appear in behalf of that City to expr.ess their views conc~rning the subject peti~iuns; tliai: the lack of an Environmental. Impact Report was of particular ~~-nterest; that the site was essentially a hole ir. the ~round and was left uver from the con~'.ruction of ~ State higk+.way and freeway; that the commercial ~one would have an impact an traffic and conge$tion thereof and possibly tiz2 r~oise frc~m the yrading o.f the site; that the Ci~y of Yorba Linda would respectfully requ~st that an EIR be required on the subject property to answer the questions that might be raised by tl:e City of Anaheim Staff; that t'~; City af Yorba Linda px'operties adjacent to the subject ~roperty were ~rir~~rily one-~alf acre and one acre, with an open and rural atmosphere; that buil~.ling essentially on the property line at the subjE~:t location would give a much more aggressire fe~eling than the existin~~ development in th~ area; that the City of Yorba Linda ~rould n~t like '~o see a solid wall building k~acked up to Short StreeL-, whicn the preposed plans called fort that it ap- peared that when the Sta~e nivision of Highwa~~s chopped off a pieca of prop- erty to the point where it was no longer suitabie for residential, it was automatically suitable for commercial developinent, ancl this wouZd seem to be xnvprse logic since commerci~t was a much higher and r~ore ir.tensive use than resi.dQntialf that the ba~i.c problem w,~s when the State unloaded the prc~perty ~ ~ M1N~TL'S, C]:TY PLIINNING COMMI5SIdN, May 13, 1974 74-24b RL;CLASRII'ICATIC~N NO. '13-~7a-52 AND VARIANC~ N0._2~02 (Continued) which waA substandard and then proposed ~or aommoroial deve~opment so t.hat thF new prap~rty owner could re:a:lize value f.r.om lt, and t.hAL• tha prab7.am ehould U~ bc~~wc~n the State and thc~ proper?:y owner and not with the citi~:s; thdt rayr~rding tr.affi~ in a,~3 around ~ublia schaol eitea, ~ new '11gh achool wa~ loca~ad Acrosa the gtreet tr~m the nub~ect proportyi tihat an additi~nal unit w~s being conetruoted to the high echoo ~vt~ich was presently at a}.>out half its ex~~eted capacity; that the high ~+uhool s~udenta h~c~ a large number of care and thare wuuld be a l,~r.gr~ number of :lementary studonts walking to sc.hool; that a 240-horne dev~lapment h~d been approved in ~he City of Yorba Linda and a~.l oE those children would be attendtng t.he two sohoals in the immediate areat that wii:hout th9 benefit of. an EIR to indicnte the traffic and expected congestion, it would be askin~r toa a,~uch to ~xpprove the petitiors aC this timej that the schools had taken a position in opposition to the subject petitions; and that the property was compl~~ely inappropriate for commeroial development, k:owever, the area itself was primaril~ re~iden~ial and ~lthough a neighborhoad cnmmercial in itsAlf wA~ not necesaarily bad, ~he pxoposal would a~spear to have traffic and ~ongestlon problen~~ that woi~ld be insurmo~ntable. Mra. Mary Dinnd~r.f appeared beforP the Commis3ion and s~.ated •thp sub~ect property was a very difficult. site to dev~lop; however, if the ~ther similar pockets in the City ~f Anahelm were indicated as hardahip cPSes and zoned commercial in fine residential areas, bad precedenta would be establlshed as there w~r~ muny other sucn sites t;roughout the City and e•,rc~n close to the subject site; and that she was suggesting no changes ta tha General p1a~i but to leave the property as it wae. Tn rebuttal, Mr. Hill stated tYie street widening ~n Short St.reet was more than ft would ever Ua used, 80 or 90 feet at that point; that the satback variance was against the off-ramp o.f the £reeway and not on Short Street; that the building was to be set back from i:he street to th~ ultimate; that~. regor.ding an EIR, he believed in environmental control but he was afraid th~t in too many cases this requirement was used for nothing more than a tool or an expenss to further discourac~e a deve.loper; that it was quite ob~~~ous in the area regarding the traffic, as ii: was not a heavily travelled si:reet; that the request was not a hardshi.p case but, in ~their opinion, it was not unre~•:nnable to request commercial zoning since the property was surrounded by a freeway, cwo streets, and the rear of the praperty was owned by the Flood Contr~>1 ~iszrict; that it was not in a residential subdivision and no one would wan.t ~_~ live there; that the property was now grawing e~~eds and other shrubbery in tiie q~rge and it was impossible to get a tractor ~~to it; that if the property was not developed, it would not= be an asset to the n~ighbors but would be a dump site eventually since there was no way to qet into it to clean i.t out. Mr. Schwartze noted for thP Comn~ission that letters in oppc~sitian had been received from Mrs. Frank Mer.rell, Mr. Geo~ye Oja, Mrs. Anit~ Flagy, Mr. Leonard Gutmann, Mr. William Dieterle and Lois Tochner. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 7n reply to questioning by Commissioner Compton regarding cot~sideration ~f other uses for the subject property, !~r. Hi11 stated it would not be pract~cal to build a residence on the property; that a w~odworking shop woulcl be M-1 zonin~ arid the only ather use would be for stabling of horses. In reply to que~tioning by Chairtnan GauEr, Mr. .till stated his firm was in thc business of. purchasi.ng State surplus property; th~t i:hey had executed a deed donating the subject property to a ch~ritable in_~titution but until tnere was some use for it, the institution could not ~ccept the gift; tha± following the development of the property, the petitionec's intention was to lease it back so that the institution could ~erive sc.me income from it. • ~ 0 MINUTF.S, CZ'PY PLANNING COMMISSTON, Mtty 13, 1974 ~A'7a~ R;'CLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-52 AND VARIANCE N0._ 1602 (C~~ntiixueci) Cbmmiasionex Farano noted that i.t appodred the ~~roperty ha~~ been acc~ui red on a spoculativa basis J that a reclaseificar_iori or z'ezoni.n~~ d~~;~1t with t.}xa ].and use in an Area und the petiti.c.~ner had not talked abaut. Lhe ba~1a on w}tich the property should be reclasaifiedt that uoually a reclas~iPlr.atiun wa:~ pred~cat-ed up.~n tho fact that the.r.e had bean rn ct~ange ln thA ur;~~ of the lancl in an ar~ea and t'»t a reclasa.ification wae juAtilindt and th+~t an R-A, Agricultural., 2~ne was a holding zona. Chairman Gr•~ r no*.e~'~ that the State wc~a fortunate to be abte to s97.1 thQ subject pr~.~~~ srty. Mr. H:ill stated that the property would remain a dump if no one came in an~~ fi11~d it; however, those improvem~;nts would have t~ be ~uatified tl~rough its clPVelopmei:t. Cort~n~iasioner Farai~o noted that the property wa~ undesirable and other than fox gut'e speculation, he did not know why the petitianar had ~urcha~ed it. Mr. Hill reiterated his c~nwern to help the charitabla institutior~.. ~.~mmissianer Herbst raised the question as to whnthez the property would ~urvive on the bagis of a canvenlence market and noted that the petiti...ner was requsst•ing C-1 zoning which would permi.t a liquor store by right, which did not belong in the subject area, and he would not vote for C-1 zoning; that all over town there were convenience markets locat~d ait;hin walkirxg distance to •~chools, however, he was not sure that the subjECt prnperty should be developed in that manner. Mr. Hill s;:..ted they were requesting C-1 zoninc a~ that was what wo•~1d be needed to aonatruct the proposed market; and that what t.hey wexe ~sking for was the best use, in his opinion. In reply to auestioning by Commisaioner Farano, Mr. Hi1]. stated he had owne~' the subject property L•or ap~roximately one and oiie^half years and that the charitable institution referred tc was the Melodyland Druc~ P~event:lon Center. Commisaion~r Compton cffered a moti.on, seconded by Commissio.~er Kirg, that the ~lanning Commission recommends to the City Couiicil that the subject project be exempt fram the requirement to prepare an £nvironmental Tmpa~t Report pursuant to the provisions ~f the Californi.a Environment~l Quality Ac~. The Planning Commission ent~red into discussiar: concerning the ETR as requested by the City of Yorba Linda, during which Commissioner Herbst i.ndicated, in his opinion, that a report ~hould be required since the pr~u- posed ~~se wouid actually change the environmeizt in the area fram residei.ti,~1 to commercial. Thereupon, C~ ..~.ssioner King withdrew his s~cond to th~ foregotng motion and ~aid motion ed fo.r Zack of a gecon~l. In renly to quesi:ia;ling by th~ Planning Comnission, Dept~ty C~.ty Att~:•i:ey Frank T•owry advised L-hasc prop~rty with 2U,000 scluare feet of ~an3 situated in the c:ity oF Yorba. Liiida woutd be required by that City to have ~ z EIR. Commissioner Compton offEred a new motion, second~d by C'Um~~ss'.oner ~ohnson an~d M0~'ION CARRIEll (Commissionei' Herbst voting "no" ), th~ ° ti-~e P].anning Commiss~on xecommends to the City CounciZ that tha suk~~e~ project be exemp;: irom the requirement ~o prepare an Environmental Impac± -port pu.-3u~ant ta the provisions of the Californi~a Environmental r,~uality ..ct. Commissioner Compton offered Res~tu ion No. PC74 9i and moved For its passage ~nd a~opt~on to recommend to the Ci~y Co~ncil disappr~val of Petition for Reclassification No. 73-74-52 on tt~e bu:.is that the proposed zoninr ~s not comnatib]e ta the immediate area rahich is low-density residentia:.. (See Resolution 3ook) ~ • MINUT~.~, ~.:T'"Y PLRIVNING COMt4I~SIUN, M8y 13, 1974 74~i~4A REC'LA.SSTF~CA'~ION N~. 73-74-52 AND VAItTANCE A10. ?602 (Cont~.nued) On roll carl, i:he ~oragoing resalution was pageAd by the following vote: pyEg; COMMISSIONERS: Compton, Furano, HorbRt, ,7ohnson, ~cina, Morle.y, Gt~u3r NOES : COMMISSIONERS s None ABS~NT: COMMIS~IONERS: None Commiseior~er Compton off~red Reeol~iti~n Na. PC74-9Fi aud moved far its paseage and adoption to d~ny Petition for V~~rian~e N~. 2602 or~ khe baeis that since the plauininc~ Commisaion has reca:~~n~encie : di.eapproval of the reclask i.fication of sub jeat pr.cperty , the ~~ro~asad dr.~• ~lopment could no~ be accompl.L~hed wiLh- in the ~ire developmsnt standat•ds af t.he zon~.ng on subjec~ property. (See Resolution IIook) On roll call, the ~oregoiiig rer~olutibn was pas~ed by the fallowing vote: AYES: CUMMIS5IONER~ ~ Compton, ~'araT~o, Her.b$t, ,Tohnsan, King, Morley, Gauer NOES: COMMISSTONERS : Nane ABSENT: COMMiSSIONERS: None ARFA n~VELOPMENT - INITIATEn BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS~ION, 204 pL.AN I'O. ?..14 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92805t to canside.r vehir.ular circulation and accesa for approximately acres generalty boundsd by the nor~herly extealsion Grave Street ~o the west, Miralom;~ Avenue to the north, TUStj.n Avenue to the northeast, tt~e Atchig~~n, Topeka & Santa ~'e Itailroad ~n ~he southeast, and La ~31md Avenue to the nouth. Subject area development plan was cont..nued from the mpeting of February 20, 1974, for Fu=ther input from the affec~ed property owners and subsequen~ly continued t~om ~.:~F ineetings of .Marct; ~1, Marc}~ 18, April 1, and April I5, 197~, in order fo': Staff to o,.tain additional information regarding the legal status of porti~~nR of the pro~eri:y in the area af~ectect by the Plan. On April 29, 1974, thA Commission further ~ontinued considex~aticn of the Plan indicating that the pr.opert.y owners should meet a~nd agree or. a sa.lt~ti.on. Zoning Supervisor Charl~:s Roberts note~d for the P~.anni,ny Go~n~asion ~ha~, at the la~t Commission me~ti.ng the Staff was dirc~cted to prepare an ~xhibit C in order tc~ allow for tl-ie maximum f.lexibility of the road alignment; that in addition tu the 30-fout strip of land which divided portions A anc. B nf the Study Are~~ .he ~xhibits showed an additional :i4 feet on t'~e nort' and 34 feet on t' ~outh, tutalliny 98 feet and this was to be fu~ _he.r re.fiiled down to a 64-L..ut right-of-way; tnat just pri~r to the Commissior, rieet.ing, a discussion ;iad been held outside the Councii Chambe~ and the ~wo proper~y owners had expressed ~ willingn~ss to Y'ESOI.VC " 0 matter by dedicating 17 feet of right-of~w~y on either side ~f the existing 30-foot right-of-way i.f they would not be responsible for installation of the street improvements; thaic a basie assumptian was being macle i-.hat the existing 30 feet was for road purposes and if this was r.~t an exi5ting right-of-way, ~hen steps would be 't~ken by the pro~~erty owne-- to make sure that appropr~.ate dedication will be ma~le for this 30-foot strip; tha~. the matter o` the City ~~lsta111ng the street improvemeni;s h:ad been d'~cussed with both thE City Engineer and the Director of Public W~rks who had indicated that based uoon the ne~d t~r a street system to 5erve the entire area, it would be a reasor ~le recommenda- tion for the St~ff to make tc the Planning Commission f~r f~rwarding en tc, the City Councilt ~hat Mr. Hurwitz had included as part of his offer that any excess portion of the ~xisting 30-foot strip would be qui~claime3 in the event that there was a ri.qht-of-way over the property at the present time; that in this regard, if i.ki~ property cou~d be quitclai.med, tYie only items that would be quitclaimed would be the road eas~ment that might L over tt~e p:.operty; however, the C' i Enginaer had indicated that therc~ would st'll be a need for certain drainage easements. Mx. Roberts continu~d by stat:ing that 5taff. would recommer d to the P].anning Commission that Exhxbit C be adopted wi~h 17 feet being d~:dica~ed by the property awner on either side of the existing 30-foot road right-~f-way; that the City would inatall the street improvements, but as far as the quit- claim was ooricern~d, i~ would probably be appropriate for Mr. Hurwit~ tio • ~ MINUTES, CITY' PLANNING COMMISSSON, Me-y ~.3, 1974 74-249 AR~A DE'VELOYN~NT PLAN N0. lla ~Cor~tir~ued) make that requost r.•a~hor t}~an Staff recommanding it at i•`~i.s ~ime, dnd tha1: cou].d be a aonditi.on of hia offor to dedicate aince there mtyht br~ eome 1ega1 rr~mifica~ions and i~t might he unwiae to make oommitmen~s at this t:imE. Mr. Hurwi.tz, ownc~r oE Portion B of rhe ~tucly Ar~~a, ap~ae~rc~d betoze tho Commissi.on And stated Mr. 1Zobertg hacl subs~t~ntially sat ~orth hig offAx• to dedicute the a.~itional 17 feet tc~ tha 30 f.aet whick~ wt~s presently l~cated on hla propert~ for roadway purpoaes= that hia oEfer of dedication was oonditioned upun th~ City paying f~r ~11 of. the improv~ments for the street and upon the express coniiltion tnat the City gi.ve up any alleged ~].aim it might have for a roadway xunning fram the point W~liere th~ etrae~ would ond on ~he eas~, ull the way to Jp£Eeraon Stxset. Commisaianer Herbst ir,quired if Mr. tiu~wi.tz was givinq easements Por c~rai_n- age purpoass, and Mr. Huzwitz stated alth~ugh that had not been discussed with Staff, he w~L.ld be reasonable about it bu:: wr~ndered what wi~th ~r dmount of. land wruld b~ :~eedeci for tY-nse purpoaes. Mr. F, K. Triedcm~nn, Attorney for Dew Constru~;tion, owner. of Portion A of the Stuc7y Area~ a.p~eared before the Conunission anu atated that. the oEPer o.f Ddw Construction C~mp,ny w~~uld not be a continuinc~ offer bu~c it wou7,d be kept open unti]. the City Council either rejected or confirmed the ~EPer when the ArQP Davel.opment Plan ia aet.ed upon. Mr. Roberts added tha~ anather Qoint discuased with the nroperty owners just prior to the m~Pting was that regarding the Cit,y ~.nsta7.l~ng the s~xeFt 3.mprove~ ments, said impravement~ would include curb, gutter and paving, and al~hough it could inalude moxe than that, further c~etails had not been worked out. Comminaioner Herbst offered Res~l»tion i~~. PC74-97 and moved ior its pasaage and adoption to recommend to th~ City Council. adoption of Area Devel~pment Plan No. 114, ~xhibit C, as mod~iied to r~late the dedicati.on cf 1.7 feet nf land on sither side of the existing 30-foot right-of-way, sub~ect to the stipulations by the property owners; that the Planning Commisa~.on recommends that the City Council authoriz~ the installation a~ stree~ impxovements t'or Portion B of the proposed street by the City; and, further, tha~ th~ Plani.inq Co~nmission recommends tYiat the City Council consider the mattex of quitcla~.m- ing that certain easement as described by the owner of Portion B of th~ ~t~xdy Area, which might be dete~°mined ~o be exces~. (See Resolution Boolc) Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry ad-•ised in reply to questioning by Chairm~~n Gau~r that regarding the drainage Pa~UUncil~reviewuoftthe subuectbAre~ft. open and a solution sought prior to City j Development Plan. On roll call, the for~going resolution was passed by the f~llowing vote: AYFS : GOMMISSIONERS : Com~tc~r~, I'arano, Herbst, Johnson, Ki.ng, Morley, Gauer NOES: COMMISSIOIvERB: Nonc ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ENVZRONMENTAL IP~A~T - PUIILIC ~iEARING. WOOnBINE CORP., 8383 Wxlshir~ Boule- REPORT NO. 124 y~~r3, Suite 700, Beverly Hi~ls, Ca. 90211, Owner. Yroperty described as: An irregularly-sh~ped parcel VARIANC~ N0. 2601 of land consisting of approximately 25.8 acres having -- "" a fruntage of appxoximately 2100 feet on tnF north sicle TEN'rATIVE MAP OF of Serrano Avenue, having a,«aximum d.ep4h of approxi- TRACT N0. 79I8 mately 670 feet, and being located app~flximatPly 1760 -- feet east of the centerline of Nohl Ranch Road. Property presentlx classiEied R-A~ AGRICULTURAI~, 20~tE. ~ARIANCE REQU~ST: WATVER UF (A) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH ,(B) MIt7IMUM LOT AFtER, ~G) MININIUM LOT WIDTH ON A CUL-DE-SAC, AND (D) REC?UIRE- MENT Td REAR ON'.CU AN ARTER1t1L~ HTGfIWI~X. ~ n LJ MINU'~ES, C~'PX P: ~1NING COMMISSION, MAy 13, 1974 74'Z~0 ENVTRCNMENTAL IMPACT RFPOEtT N0. 124, VARIANCE N0. 2601 .AN~ TENTT~TIVE MAP AP' TR1#CT NO. 79 ].8 (~antinU.ed) - -- - - _____._-__-._.- T~NTATIVE TRACT FtEAUEST: ENGINEERs TOUPS ~raGTN~ER~:N~, ~NC. ,~07.0 Noxth Mairi St~oet, Sunt~x Ana, Ca~ 927~.1. Subject proparty i.e prop~sed for subdiv~sian into 87 R-1 zoned loi:s. Aaststant Zot:' ~ Sage.cvisor Phi.lli~ Schwaxtze no~ed for thP CAtmnission that. the pe::itio:~eL was r~questing a four-week continuance in ore~er ta allow adequa~e time f~z review a~ the r.~ev~.~ ~d Er,vir.~i-~ndntAl Impa~t Re~port by the ~;IR Review Cotnmittee. Comm~.snioner King offoz~~i a n ..ior, :'PcondEd by Commiesionex Mor1~y and MOTIO:~ CPRRIED, to con~tinue the rubli.~ near•in~~ and consideration oY Environ- ment«~. Impac;t Report No. ~2:, Variance No. 260I and Tentative Map of Tract Nc. 7918 t.o f~h? meeting of June 10, 1g74, a~ requested by ~he petltionQ~. VAR1At~Tt:E ti0. 2~96 - P~'BLIC HEARING. MELVTN SCEIANTZ, 1741 Wes* 1(atella Aveiiue, -" Ai:aheim, C;. 92804, Owner.r RONF~LA E. C~MER, 1.095 Ivorth TENTATIVE MAP OF N.ain Stx~et, Suite D, Orange, Ca. 92667, Agent. Pr~per~y TRACT NO. R67E describe~' as: An i.rregu.lar.ly-sh~ped para~l of lanc~ con- ' ~~ating f approximately 3.47 acres ].ucatea noxi:hweaterly o£ krle M~.ra].oma Avex~ue ov~rcrossing and ~he Orange I'rec~-~ way, having a frontaqe of approximately 1~,3 feet on the r.ot:~h 3ifte of Mixaloma Avenue and. having a maximum depth of ap;r?rc7ximately 617 Peet. Pr~pex~y presentJ.y classi.fied R--A, AGRJCULT[~RA]'.,, :;ONE. C'ARIANCE REQU~ST: WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM LOT WTD'rii AND (8) MZNxMUM WTDTH OF Y~pESTRIAIv ACCESSWAY, 'PO CONSTRUCT A 77^UNTT A~ARTMENT COMPI,FX. TE::TATIV~; TAACT REQUc^.ST ENGINT:E~t: HALL & FORFMAN, INC•, 2530 North Grand Avenue, Santa Ana, Ca. 92701. Subject ~roperty i~ praposed far subdivision in~o 8 R~3 zoned lots. No ene app~ared in opposition t~ surject petition. Althouqh the Staff Report to ~t~e i~ .anning Commission dated 2day 13, 1974, was not read at the public hearing, it is rPferzed to and made a part aP the minutes. Mr. Ronald Comer, r.epresenting Ir~come Properties Servi~es, the petitioner, appearsd before the Commi~siaii to answer c~~estions. TH~ PUBLIC HEARING WAS (:LOSED. In reply to questioni.ng by Ch~irman Gauer, Mr. Bill Phelps, the architect for the petitioner, appeared before the Commi3sion and explained the devel- opment proposa'., being a reduction of densi.ty from chat pr.eviously proposed on the subject groperty; that the proposal was to ~lace an alley on ttie freeway and theru would be an~:-bed:.oom units wnerc, the windaw would face on the freeway; tki~t in the 33-unit complex there wou:ld be units facing the freeway at 45 to 50 feet; that the plan wa~, rat;her than provid~ng a berm, that dauble-insulated walls be constructed with sound-retardant w:i.ndows wi~ich were not the d~uble-paned typQ; that th~re *,~ere very few t~n_ta actually fac- ir~g the freeway w~.thin sound 3istance: and within the distance that wnuid be applied at tY~e berm requested; that not having ~tuc~ied t~e Stair Report, he did not know what Staff was rPcommendir.•g. C;bief Building Inspector Dan ~lan DoL°pe noted iEor the Commission that he ha& cnpies af the noisc: insulation s~andards which had been adnpted by ~he Depart- ment of Housing ai~d Community Devalc~pmant, s~id standards b~~ng for naise insulation between dwei.ling unita of mu'ltiple-fami].y r.esidential buildings and for exte= ior walls of buil~ings in r~oise-cri.t~.oa]. ar~as; that said atand- ards would be~om^ effective Rugust 22, 1974, ~.3 it wotild be the recommE:lda- tion of the Building Division that bec~use the sub~ect development was located in a noise-critical area, that the stand~rd~ applicat.le to exterior walls as ~ ~ MTIVV'C~S ~ CITX PL~INNING COMMISGIUN ~ May 13 ~ 1974 74-251 VARIANCE NO~ 2596 AN~ TFN'rATIV~ MAP OF TR1#CT N0. H678 (C'ontinu~d) contained in tihe atandzr.ds bP appli~d to the subject projor..~. Mr.. Van Dorpe presen~ed c~p1.~s of said sta:~darda to the P)anning ~ommiasion and adviaed h~ would be happ,y to answer any queatians rai~te~d l~y tr~4 p~~.itiorer ^oncarning the foregoinq recommendatioiz. Mr. Phelpa starea he had c;ov~red the matter we.ll with the ChieE Bu:lldin~ znspector c~nd the petitioner. woui.c9 a~.ipulate to accr.pt tho conditions t+~ recommended. Commiss~c er.• King inquire•i if it wat~ realix-:d that tc~sta would be made inside the dwell.Lny units and that the petition~r would be requized to fulfill thc sound requir.emerits between the units ineiae the builclings and from thQ freeway outside ths bu3.lding~, ancl tlle pei:itioner so atipulmc.~d. Commisai.oner Johnson nuted that '.t would appaar that the matt:er oP th~ berm yhould be purauedF that if a berm was requir.ed, t.hen the alley wo+~ld hav~ ~n be moved approxim~itely 22 feet into the project which wauld c:anfliderably chang~ the naturQ of thP project. Mr. Pheips SCAL' 3 that the berm wt~s an alternate on ~he ~zigi.nal 96-unit applicationt that there was no alley and a clrive was pr~v~.ded inside; tk~ai: thers were ~anit~ facing a'lmoat aireatly to the fraQway; that the Pl~nning Commisrion at that ~i.me asked for anc: r~ceived a sound barrier that woulrl have ~xceeded the berm; that a new design concep~~ waa being proposed with lesser denaity, more ~ndividua~ity, l.azger units, and more l~.ving demanfl and L•his, in essence, wou.ld be the berm; that there way some ~pace outside on StatF property but they had not desired to pursae that, nof. knowing whether it would be acc~ptabl.e or r~t; that the minimum units that w~are placed on the freeway was i:hPir. way o£ effect.i.nq a berrc~ and, knowing that the stanciaxds would lie in ef.fec~ before comp].etion Uf the projPCt, t.hey weLe will~nq {:o ar~,de by tbem; and t;~at he had used the referenced sfiandards fo~c a iiumber of years. He clarified thai; there was no freeway off-ramp near ~h~e subjeCt property, but an overpasa. Cammissioner Comptazi inquired concerning the lot line and Mr. Schwartze a~~-ised ttiat Staff was rpcc>mmendinc, that the lot line of the prnposed t.r.act be extended to include that pnrtion whiclz was presentl.y shown as a very small, thi.n lot containing th~ wall which ran along tlie perimeter o£ the freeway, and that the fenaes would be included with the lot line and portions of ~aid fences would L•hen be a part of the pa.rce].s as they were divided up and approved in the lot cu~ of the tract map. Thereupon, the petit~uner. ~,o stipulated to the far~:going recommendation which pert~lned to Lot A. Commissioner Herbst c~.arified for the Commission that there would be one solid wall along the property line abu~tting the fr.eeway; that i;he Commission's pr~or concerr, had been £~r landscaping and beautifioation along ~he freF.wuy which wou~d be pzovided with a berm; that the Commission hacl also been con- cerned that no buildings faced the freeway; that he felt that this w~.~ a problem par.cel whi.ch :vas a freeway remnant and to make it feasible ~_t. should be brought up to st.andard~ in a1l respects J tha•t fc.r some reasons '..here seemed to e more density proposed on problem ~arcels than othe.rwise in the City; and that to utilize the subject property iL• shuuld be landscaped arid bermed ~rope.rly . i~lr. Phelpa stated that by providing a. 5-£oot bei-m and a 6--foot wall, t}le reight of a 6-foot wall wauld be exceedc~dt that he could praride a~lanted area by ~reaking the wall which woul~ give visual bAauty ,~ut would destroy s~me of the sound barrieL; that the breaks in the garage wall, either~ land- scaped or decorated, co~rld do a certain thing but they had. proven successfu? in putting a garage in the area as propos~da however, hc understood Commis- sioner Fierbst's vi.eH~~oint. Commissioner Herbst noted that there wauld be ak~out a 190-foot wall, 1~ fzet high al.onq the freeway z~n3 that it mi~~ht be advi~sable to look into the posai- bility of participating with the State for the adclitional property, si.nce the State had allowed half af a berm to be located on their property on other occasions. ~ ~ ~ MLNUTES, CJTY FJ.,ANNING COMN:::SSIpN~ May 13, ].~.~74 ~4'2~2 VAItZANCE N0. 2596 ANp TENTATI'VE MAP OF' xRACT N~. 8678 (Contiriuad) Zoning Superviaar Ghe~rlea Roberta r~dvised 4hat in reaalling a c~ nversatior~ ~aich the pr.nviou~ applioan~ on the sub~ect proparty, k~ha~ rQgarCiing the aonditfon £or tho bo:rm thore was somo discusa~.on iQgArding it beinc~ half on the Stake property and if hio memoxy eerved him corcectly the pe~itfonar. approaahoc~ th a Si:st~ Ai.viai.on af Highwaya and fotind that t.hey wauld not allow it bPC%iuse there was a small dreinac~~a stxuc:L•uru immQdiately ad~aeent t~ the frc~ew~..y right-of.-way . Ha nated ~~r rh~ Commiseion t`zat if a b~rm was desired it woula prubably ha~~~e to be loa~ted c:ompletel.y ~n the subJ~eC p rape rty . Comrt~isaiarie.r tiarb~k rei~erated that the Sta~:e shaulrl be contacted. He further nc~ted that thia ~ype parcFl, being a fr~eway romnant, waR usu+~l7.y purc.hased at a good px~icc and the purchaser.s ~hould realize th~t ~hey had ta spencl some monc~y to m~ke nscessary im~,rcvements to make the property deairable. 1lssistant Development Ser.vi.ce~ Director Ronald Thompsor. note~ for the Planni.nq Cummi~efon th~t the Staff hac~ had numarous conversations with th~: Stat~ Division ~f Highways and, in theory, they had indicated ta Staff that they wauld take part of. the berm c~n thc~ir prc,~perty ,'r-owever, in ~rttctice thera were several miles of State property in the City of P.naheim und aver a peri~od of several year$ the Ci~ty had never been able t~ g~~ the S~ate to at].ow a d~vel- oper ~o -onstruct a berm on Sta~e proper.ty~ tht~t atl along Sari~a Ana Canyon where ~there wa~ a ber.m being canstructed adjacent t.a tt-e Riverside Freeway, the State would not allow half of that to be on their ri.ght-of-way. Mr. Phc~lps 3tated that ttiere was a very large gap betwesn thz exi.ating uPt- xarnp and the exiating State fenae ancl he would aaaume that there wouid not be anothez off--ramp constructed. Tn reply t~ questi~ning by Conunissioner Morley, Mr. Roberts advised that a 5~faot high ber.m would require 20 feet at tne baae to c~nsta:uct~. Mr. Phalpg suggestAd that anuther ~vay of creating a berm w4uld be to place it against the ca~port wa11 as a retainer, which would require only hal~ the uaua]. 20-~oat space, if that was acceptable to the Planning Comzni:ision; that such an alternative would do nothing to the inside of the project and the outside of the berm would be creating a visual ~£fect; that the 33-uni~ com- plex waq tuned to an inside living environment and the outgiae was merely a bedro~~rtt facility, Chairman Gauer suggesteii that the w~all could be broken up by planting a tree at about 10-foot intervals. Mr. Phelps stated the project had amplp parking and in~ wall could be in. 50 or 60-foot increments. Commissioner Herbst noted that th~~ pro ject J.acked streets xn. the area for on-~street parking and a~.l of the parking would have to be providec7 on~aite; that he <<~as not in favar o£ the plan as proposed; th~t th~ stipu~.ation had been to provide a berm and the waZl and that would be the least protection that could be given, apart from me~ting the star-~ard for 45 dBAs in livi;ng quarters; that if there was any outsicle entertainmen~, the freeway noise wou.l.d make it poor at best~ that i:he property should have a berrn for the full l~ngth as previously required f.or the a~ib ject property and even it this aould o~n1y be providpd at the expense of losiny some denaity, the project should havP the best living Pnvironment possible for the future residents . Zn reply to questioning by Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Phelps ~tated a continuance would be i~~;uestec~ and that they wauld probably revert back ~o the 96 iin.its previously proposed for the sub ject prope:rtr . Commission~r Herbst then ;noted that of concern was a better living envir~nment for the residPr~ts. Commissioner H~~rbst ~ffered a mation, seaonded by Commi~sioner Iiing and MOTION CARRIED, to conL.inue the public hearing and consideration of Petitior~ fo:r Variance -~o. 2596 and Tentative Map o£ Tract No. 8678 to the meeting of l~lay 29, 1974, as request~d ;y khe petiticnQr. ~ ~ ~ MI:NUTES, C~L~Y PLANIVING COMMISSION, May 13, 1974 74^253 ENVIROI3N~NTA.L IMl'ACT ~ PUBLIC HFAF,ING. R. H. GRANT CORQ. ,?.21 West Dy~r Road, RFPqRT NO. 12 5 Santa Ana, Ct-. 927U2, Ownerl I:. 1,. PF:~IRSUN 6 ASSOC:. , ' 3955 Birch Street, Newport L~e~ach, Ga. 926G0, Ager~t. R~CLA~~IFICATION Property describc~d as: J~n :rregula.].j~-sha~ac9 poraol NO. 73-74-5_f. af l~nd cox-sisting of a~proximately 3ti.7 acr.es located an the nurth and south eidee Uf Nohl Ttanch itoad west- VARIANCF N0. 26UQ erly of. the intereer.tion of Impnrial til~hway and N~hl - Ranch Raad. Property pra~sently ~lasaitic~d R-A, TENTATIVE MAP OF AGRICULTU1tFU~, ZONF. TRI~CT NAS. 8533 AND 8672 ~2EQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R•-H^~10,p00~ RESTDENTTAL IIII~LSIDF, LOW-DENSTTY, S:LNGLE-F~1MTL~1 ZONE VARTANC~ ~2FQUES'Ps WAIVER OF REQUIRENI~NT Tt~AT SINGLE-I'AMILY STRUCTURES REAR ON AN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY TENTATTVE TRA~T R~QUF.ST: Tentative Tract No. 9672 - 45 R-H-].0 ~000 zoned l~i:s No one appeaxed in oppositi.on t~ ~ubject petitiona. Although the Stt~ff Report to the Planning Commist~ion dated May 13, 1974, was not read at the public hearing, i~ is reterred to and made a part af the minutes. Mr. Dor~ Fredarickson, repr~senting the petit•loner, appear~d b~Eoc~ the Comm:i s- aion and st.ated the Grant Corp. liad appeared p:eviously w.ith a tawnhouse development in mirid f.or +~he ~ubject property which was npposed by memx~ers of the gPneral public and numeroiis homeowners of the Weatridge dev~Yopment; that in their denial of the previously propased project, the Planning Cammission had thanked the developer for giving the Westridge development ~to the City, advising that the 1~gical development fc~r thE subject property ws~uld be an OXtetl9iOT1 of the Westridge development; and that tYiPy were, therefore, propo~- iny a Westridg~~-type development for the subject property at this time. Mr. Frederickson read a letter dated May 7~ ].974, from the Westridg~ Iiame- owners As~ociation expressing their acceptance ~f the proposal, a copy of which was placed on file with the City of Anaheim. Mr. Frederickson cantinued by statYng that he quegtioned Condition No. 15 as set torth in the Staff Report ~or Tacact No. 8533 bexng "That the entire ultim~:.i.e width of Imperial Highway south of. Nohl Ranch ~oad sha11 be included •,~ithin the ~aundary of suk,ject tract" ; and that from his experience i~ was uiz~.~sual to r.~~quire impr~vement to thz opposite side of a hl.ghway from prop- erty ~~ing developed and, therefore, he would xPSpectfully request leave from thai~ condi. tion. C~.~mmissionar Herbst noted that the City did not usually acaep~ a half street: and that p.naheim Hi].].s , Inc . might be interested in dedicating and improvi~nc~ tht~ opposite side of Imperial Highway in this instanc~e. Of.f'.ce Er.gineer Jay Titus advised that the City had riever acce~ted 'nalf a through stzeet when it was an entirely new streett and that withnut the full. w~.dth at this time, th~ City would have difficulty improving the other half . 1+ir. Frederickson stated that he did not knovr the policies of the Ca.t.y, but Y~e did not think it would be a problem if th~y did not improve the whoie street: at this time. Chairman Gauer noted that the developer could put up a bond for the streE~ improvements and g~~ one: foot beyond ~he hal.f width, and Mr. Ti.tus advised t2~a~ that p~tentla]. h~d bPe~i made avai lable to the developer if they so desired _ Mr. Frederickson then stated that the street being aiscussed was outside tY~e~ proposed development. Mr. TiL-u~ noted for the Cc~mmission that the condition o~ Approval in question had been approved by the Planning Gommission for the previnusly proposed dev~ 1 apme n t. ~ ~ MINU'PES, rI'1Y PL.ANNII~G COMMISSION, May t3, 1974 74--25A ENVIItONMF.NTAL IMPACT RI~PORT NO. 125, RECLASSTFTCATTON NO. 73^74-~G, VARTANCE N0. 25~0?~1A TENTATIVE; MAP OF TRACT NOS. 8533 AND 86']2 (Continued)w~_____ In res~wnse to quoationing by CommisaionPr H~rbat, Mr. Fraderiokson etated that the Grant Corp. awned one si.de of t.h~ street an~ Aridheim H111$, Inc. o~.vned the other sicle. He further stated that tho dovelopmeat costg for both 9~CZQH of the etree~ w~uld be an economical burdan to thg proposed px'c~eat. Mr. Tony Allen, prebi.dant. ~~f the Grant Corp., aPpeared b~Pore thQ Commis~~.on and stateci ~hr~t althouqh th•, Urant Cazp. had an intaxoot in Aneheim Hi11s, the ~raposed projocti wo~il%, be dc~veloped tutally separatc~i that it was true that ownezehip w~a ~he same but it wa3 vastly unfair t~ burden the de•~elop- ment wit;h the enti.re street or highway; that ~~he developQr di~. not naed Imperial tiI~.ghway for the suk~ jec~. t.racts sinc:e thg primaxy accass would be off Nohl Ranch Roadf and that it waa sansaless to improve a streo~: to qo nowherc. In reply ta questi~ni.ng by Cc-mmi.ss:~oner Herb~t, Mr. Ti~us advi.sed that the Ci~4y w~s asking for dedication af the full width at thls L•imA, and other arrangements as f:ar as the actual i:nprovements were concerned. Thereupon, Mr. Millick, repre~3enting Anaheim Hi.lls, Tnc., appeare~ bePore the Commission and stipuJ.ated to dedication of tha easterly half of ~hF ultimate width ot- Imp~rial Highway from Nohl Ranch Road ~outh~r.ly to the south bour.tcl- ary of T,rar.t No. 8533 for future improvoment when developmpnt on the other side of Imperial Highway was underway. Mr. Titus then adviseQ reqardi~~g grading or earth work, that comp7.~te embank- ment sh~uld be dis~ussed since to improve one ha~1f af ttio s~reet would in- volve a good portinn of the other one-half. Mr. Fred~rickson :~tatecl that if ~he ~ommission was c~ncerned about fill for. the ulti.mate width, that could l~e accomplished as part of the subject development. Mx. Millick appearect again befer•e the Commisaion and stated that if Anaheim Hills, Inc. could s~lve the ~-ecc~ndary acae~s problem, they would px~e~er to ~3rad~ out whatever was to be gra3ed by them at the time they had a grading pro;ject in ~rocess on property a~ijacent to the subject property, as lony as they had dedicated the necessary right--of-way. In repl.y to questioning by Commit~sianer Kiz~g, Mr. Frederickson stated they werp p.roposing the same roo~ing niaterial used in the Westridge development, beinq wood shake roofs. In reply to questianing by Commi.ssxoner Herbst, Mr. Frederi ckson stipulated that there were two lots that sided on an arteria].t-~ighway and those homes would be constructed with insulation ir_ the ceilings and walls, as w~ll as double-paned glass windows in the walls facing onto the art erial highway fo r proper sound-buf~ering. Commissioner Mor].ey inquired conc~.rning maintenance of the slopes nn the subject property and noted that on Nohl Ranch Road west o~ the subject prop- erty the slopes were covered with weeds and the subject property wauld probably have that same probiem. Cammissioner Farano stated that ii: was his understanding that the developer wuuld landscape the slope areas at~d the Ci~.y would maintain them. Tt was pointed out that no condition to t:hat effect was contained in the Stnff Report. Commissioner Farano noted that the~ petiti.oner was present at the ~aork session on May 8, 1974, during which the slope maintenance problems were discussed, and Mr. Frede rickson then atated ane answer to the problem would be through the homeowners aseociation. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted s~s a point ~f addi tianat discuss.ion that the .~roblem of maintenance of` the slopes did not pertain just to th~ slopea adjacent to arterial hiyhw~ys but also ~he local streets af the aub- divisocis and in the interior~ of many of the lntst that the Fire Chief had ~ ~ M'tNUTFS, GITY PLANNtNG GUMMISgION, May ],3, 1974 74-255 ENVIRONN~NTAI. 7:NII'ACT REPpRT N0. 125, RLCLAS°ZFICATION N0. 73-74-56, VAR2ANCG N0. 2600 l~ND TENTA'Y'IV~ DIAP OF' TRACT. NOS. ~533 AND SG72 sCon inued) ~______ indic~ted that approximataly 47 wesd ~bateme»t notiaos had been issued 3urinq the past~aeok in thQ Narthridgo develr,pmant for frilur~ to me~intain eomo o~ thc~ sla~o areaai that St~~t wae in the proceea cf Pormula~ing r.earnamentlations f.or the Planni,ny Commis~ion with rogarcl to conditiona whiah could be impoc~e~3 a~~o~ clevelopment i.n the hill ~reas which oould xemady the problom concQr.ning maintonance; that S~aff would pr.~par~ a aond.ll:ion ~~ ttpproval. ot the subjdct petition c~ncHrni.ng mai~~tHnanca af the elopo araa landacaping which was pArt of the developmenk af the eub j~ct property and said condition wotild be pre- ~entad fur P1Anning Commi.~sion a~~roval prior to City Council review and~ if Ap~roved, the condition af appr~val could then be addad to th~ zesolution of dpproval of sub~ject ~~tition. Commisaione r Herbst o£fared a mo tion, seconded by Commissioner I(ing and MOT~ON CARRIED, t2iat Environmental Impact. Repo~t No. 125, aupplementing Master Environmental Zmpact R.eport No. 80, 1laving been consider_ed this date by the Cit.y Planning Commisr~ion and evi3ence hoth writtQn ~nd c~ra1 havirig bePn p.re- sented to ~upplernent sr~id drRf~ E7R No. 125, the Planning Commiss~.an be].ievea that said drafi. ETR No. 125 does c;on~urm to the City and State guid~lines and the State of C~lifoxnia Envirunmental 4uality Act and, based upon such 9.nfor- mation, doe~ hereby recommend to tlie City Council L-ha.t they certify said EIR No. 125 is in comnliance ~rith said F.nvironmental Quality Act. Commiasion~r Herbst offered Resolution No. PC74-9a and moved ~or i~s passage and adoption to recommend ta the City Council approval of Petition. Por P.eclassiFicati~n l~o. 73-74~56 subject to the f.oregoi.ng fi.ndir~ga and the stipulations of the petitioner, ~nd subject to conditi~ns. (See ResoZution nook) On roll call, the foregoing resolution was pa~sed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSION~R5: Compton, Fax•ano, Herbs~, Johnson, King, Moz'1ey, Gauer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSI013ERS: None Commissioner Herbst offered Resolutian No. PC74-99 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Vaiiance No. 2600 subject to the foregoing findings and the si:ipulatioris of the ~etitioner, and subject to conditions. (See ResaJ.ution Baok? On ro1L call, the foregoing x'esoluti:,n was passea by the follo~aing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Compton, Farano, Horbst, Jnhnaon, King, Morley, Gauer NUES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Non~ Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded b~~ Commissioncr Morley and MOTION CARRIED, to approve Teiitative Map of Tr.act Na. 8533 subject to the following conditions: (1) That the appraval of Tentative Map of Tract yo. 8533 i.s granted subject to the appr_oval of Reclassificati~n No. 73-74-56 and~ Variance No. 2606. (2) That should this subdivision be devel~p~d as mor~ than one sub- division, each subdivisi.on thereaf sha~l be submitted in tenta- tive form for approval. ("s) That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall sha11 be constructed on the east property 13.ne aeparatinq Lot Nos- 5 thru 1S and Imp~rial Highway,, and on the n~rth property l.ine separating !'~ot Nos. 45 and 1 thru 5 and Nohl Ranch Road.. Reaeonxble l.andacapinq, including irrigatioti facil- ities, shall b~ ins ~alled in the un~emented portion of the arterial hi.ghway parY•way the full distance of said walls, plans for said landsca~ir-g to be submitted to and subjeat to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Mainte~ance. F'o11ow- ing installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the recr3onaibility for maintenance af said landscaping. CJ ~P ~ MTNUTES, CI'~Y ~'L1IJJNTNG CQMMT.5SI~N~ Me.y 13, 1a74 74-25G ENVTkQt~MENTAL IMPACm R~'FUI2T N0. 17.5, RECLAS~IF7CATION NO 73-74-56, VARTANCE N0. 2600 AND 'I'EN'PpTIVE MAi? „Ok' TI2ACT NAS . d533 AND 8672 _~_Cc~tt nue~~„~,,,,,~,~_ (4) That all Zota within thia tract shall be sc~LVEd by nnd~~rgraund u~ilitiQa. (5) That a final tr~+ct map of ,sub ject pro~erty eha:ll be ~ut~mitte3 to atid approvea by the Cit~r Council and then ba recnrded ln the office of the Orange Caunl:y Recorder. (6) That any propr,y~d covenar-t~~, conditions and reatrlctidna ~ha11 be submi.tted to and approve~d by the : ity Attorney' g OfPic:d priar to City Council ~ippraval ~f tho final tra~t map, and, further, that thE approved covenanfi.s, conditiona ~nd ros~ric- tions shall be recorded cor,currently with the Pina]. tract m~p. (7) That prior to filing the Eina1 tract map, the applicant sha11 sul~init to the City Attarnay f~r appr~val or deriial 4 eomplete synopsis of the proposea functioning Qf the opexating c:orpora- tion, including but not li:nited to the artt~].ea o~ ±ncorpora- tion bylaws, proposed methoda of man~gemeilt, bonding ~.o inaur~ mai.ntenlnce of c;ommon proper.ty and bui.ldings, And such other infnrmation as the City Attr~rney may desire to prntect the City, its citizens, and the purch~~sers of the project. (8) That atreet r~ames shall b~ Fipproved by the City of Anah~im pridr to approval of a final tract: map. (9) That the owner(s) of subject prc~~erty sliall pay to the City af Anaheim the appropriate park an~~ recreat.ion in-lieu fees rz3 determined to be ap~rapriatP l~y ~he Cit;y Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building oexmit is i.ssued. (10) That drainaye of said property shall be dispos~d of in a manner ~atisfactory t.~ the City Engineer. If~ in the px•eparation of the site, suffici.ent grading is reguired to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading ,~:i.ll be permitted ~etween Uctober 15th and April 15th ~~nles~ alI r.e~;uired off-site drainage f.acilities have been insta]led and arP ap~rative. Positive assurance shall be pr~vi~?~d the Ci~y Lhat suc:h drainage ~acilities wi11 be cam- p1.etPU prior to Octob~r 15th. Necessary r.ight-of-way for off-sxte ~9Yainage facilzties shal.l be dedicated to the Czi:y, or the City Council sha11 have initiated condemnation proceedings therefor (the cos+ts of which shall be b~rne by the developer) prior to cammencement of grading operations. The required dr~inage facili.- tias shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry runoff waters originating from hiqher properties through said property to ulti- mate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities sha~l be the first item of construction and shall be comp].eted and be functional throughout the tract and from the downstream b~undary of the propFrty to tk~e ultimatP point of dis- posal priar to the issuance of any final building insp~ctj.ons or occupancy permits. Drainage di~trict reimbursement aqreement;3 may be made available to the de~elapers of said property upon i:heir request. (].1; That gzading, excavati~n, and all r~ther construction acL-ivities sha11 be conducted in such a mannez so as to tninimize the possibility ot any si.lt originating from this project beinc; carried into the Santa Ana River by sturm water originating from or flowing through this project.. (12) That a11 streets shall be construeted in acco.rdance with City of Anaheim st.andard details. (13) That fire hydrants shall be installed and Charged as required and determined ta be necessary by the Chi~f of the Fire De~art- ment pr.ior to com~nencem~nt of structural framing. ~ ^^4 ~ MINLITEB~ CYTY P~ANN:Ct~G ~OMP4IS3ION, Ma,y 13, 1974 74-257 ENVIROHt~NT~1y IMPAC'~' ItEPnTtT N~J. 125, RECL7~Sa~F~xCATION Nn. 73~74-5G ~ VA.RT,ANCE N0. 2600 _1WD TENTATI ~E Ml~T',~F TR11CT N03,l,_,g53~ :4ND 8672 C~.~ntinued~ „_,.,,~_ (14) That vehic~xlar atic~as riylzks, exce,pt at 3tr~et und/or t~llc~y openinge, ~• ~ Imporial Hi.qt~way ai~d Nohl itan~}i Raad aha11 be dedicated '~~ the City of An,~nc~im. (15) That the en.:.ira ultimate width ~f. ImporiaJl tiighway south of N~hl Ranch .ttoad eh~ll b~ incl.uded within t~h~a baundary af s~ib~HCt kra~ t . (1f ) '1`hat the v~rtical az~d horizontal alignm~nt af Sm~eriaX Flighw~iy south uf Nohl Rax~ch Road ahal7. Ue ~pproved by the Qrange Cour~ty Roa.d Departm~:nt. (1.7) That :~ minimum 20 acale plot plan nhowtng a1Z nn-aite improve- ments including ~avc av~r.hang and pr~posed loc~tion oP mir.- cor~ditioning equlpmerit b~ submitted for k~uil.ding pexm:.t.s. Cammissioner Herbst offered ~ motion, ~ec~nded by Gcttunission~x Nurl~.y anr] MOTION CARRIED, to approve Tentativo Ma~, ~f Tract Nc. 8672 subjc~ct ~o the follow~.ng aondi.tion~: (].) That the approval ~f Tentative M~p o£ Tract No. 8672 is granted stibject to the ap~r.ova~. of R~classificai:ion No. 73-7A-56 r~nci Vari.ance No. 2600. (2) Tha~t shauld thi.s subdivisto:n be developed as mare than one s~.~2~~ division, each subdivision t.ht~r•eof ~hall be submit~.ed in ~en~~+- tive form for apprava?-. ( 3) That in accordance wi.th Czty Council policy , a 6-•foc~t ma~anry wall shall be constru~tecl a:~ the past property line se~arating Lot No3. 13 thra 19 and 3:mperial Highway, and on ~he ~outh propert~~ li.ne~ sepftrating Lot Nos . 1, 12 and 13 ~nd 39 i:hru 41 anc? Noh]. Ranch Road. Rea~onak.~le landscaping, including irriga- tion fac:i].ities, s;-all be inskalled in t.he uncemented po.rtion of the ~3rterial. highway parkway the f.ull distance of said walls; plans f~~r said landsc:aping to be submitted to and sub;~ect ta the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Follow- ing installation and accepta:nce, the City of Anaheim sYiall assume the res~onsi.bility for maintenance o£ said landscap~n~. (4) That al:l lots wi.thzn this tract shall bP served by und~rgxoun@ utiliti~~s . (5) That a:Einal tract map of subject ~roperty shal.l be submitted to and approved by the City Counci~. and then be recorcled in ±he office of tlze Orange County Recorder. (6) That an~l proposed cov~nants, conditions and restrictions shall be subm:Ltted t~ and approved by the City Attorney's OfficF prior tic~ City Council appr~~val of the fina7. ~ract map, and, further,, tha'~ the approved covenants, conditions and restric~ tians s11a11 bP recorded concurre~ntly with ~he final tract map. (7) That px:~or to fili.ng the f~.nal tract map, tha appli.carit shall submit i_o the City Attorney for approval ox denia7l a ~omplete synopsif~ of the proposed functioning o£ th~ nperating corpoza- tion, iiicluding but not limited to the a.rticles Uf incoipo.ra- tion byilaws , proposed methods af management, laonding to insure maintena~r.~-ce of common ~rcperty and builc~ings , and such other informat:ion as the Ci~y Attorney may desire to protect the City, its citi.zens, and ~he purchasers of the groject. (8} Tha~ street names shall. bN ap~roved by the City of Anahe.~n prior to apprc~val c~f a final tr~ct m~ap. ~ ~ MINUTES, CTTY PLANNINC; COMMIaSION~ M~y 1.3, ].974 74^2~,8 FNVTRONA'~NTAL IMp}1.C:T R~;POR'P NO. 3~25, RECLRaSIFIGA`.C7~._! NO. 73-74M56, VARIA.NCE N~. 26U0 AND T~N'~ATIVE MAP 0~' TR11CT NOS. as3a ~p 8672 (Co.ltinu~d) ~ ,_,,_ (9) That the owner(s) of. eurject pruperty Ahall pay to the Ci.tx of AnahF.im the apflropriat4 park acid rocr.eat.ion in-lieu fee~ as det9.rmined to be appr.~pridte by the Cit,y ~ounci.l, said fee~ ~a bP paid at th~ time thr: buil.ding permit iy i~auecl. (10) That drainage of said property ahall be disposed of in a manner satisEactory to the City ~ngineer. If, .in the prQparation of the site, suff.i.cic~nt grading is required to necossitate t~ grading pexT±i.t, no work on g~:ading will k,e permitted b~tw~en Octobor 15th and April 15th unless al? requi.rc~.d off-aita drainr~~p faciJ.~.ties llF~ve bcen installed and are op~rative. Positive assuranca atta~.l b~ pravided the City that auch drainage far.ilitie~ wi11 bo cam- pleted priox' to Oct:ober 15th. N~cessary right~-of.-way for oLf-site drainaqe facili~i~s ahall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have: initiated r.on~iemnation proc4edings therefor (the costs of whi~~h ahall be bc~r.ne by th~ devel.aper) prior to commencement of nrading operati.on~. 'rhe required dra~na~e £aci.lt- ties sPiall be ~f a size and type sufficient to car?•y run~tf w~ters originating from. higYiex propext~ies ~hrough said pr.o}~c~rty t~~ u1ti.- mate dispasal a~- appr.oved by thE~ City Engitie`.r. S~~i-~ d~uinage £acilities ghal]. be the first• item of co~istructioii an~ shall be completed and Y~e Eunctional throughout the trart and fr.on~ the downstream bou;idtiry raf the pr.ope.r.ty to the ultimate pvint of dis- posal prior tc, the i~suanee of any £inal building inspections ~r occupancy perrnits. D.rainaqe district rei~nbursQment aqreementa may be made availab].~ to ~he developers of said property up~n their request. (].1) That yradinc;, excavation, ar~d all other construction activities sha11 be co~.~ducted in such a manner ~o as to minimize the possibility af any silt ariginating from this project being carriacl in':.o the Santa Ana River by storm water ariginating f.rom or flowi.ng throuyh this proj~ct. (].2) That a11 streets shall be constructed in accordance with City a.f Ana:~F.;i.m standard details. (13) Z'hat fire hydrants ~hall be instalZed and charged as raquired and detE.rmined to be necessary by the Chief of. the Fire Depart- ment prior to commencement oi structural framing. (14) Tkiat v~hicular acce.3 rights, except at street and/o:: alley openirgs, to Imperial Highway and Nohl Ranch Road shall bP dedic::ted t~ the City of Anaheim. (15) That ~rior t~ the approval of a final tract map, ~.he owner(s) of s~...bject property shall make ir•revocab~.e offer to dedicate an E.asement for riding and hikinc, ~rail purposes over t:~at por:i~n of subject property over which the Faur C,crners Lipe Lir.a Company has an easement for pipe li.ne ana xncidantal pu:poses on the dlte of this resolution. Said offer to de,ii~ate shall be irrevocable f.or a perir~d of 20 years and m,~.y be accc~pted by the City of Anaheim at such ~ime as it is d>:termi.ned that deve].opment of such facilities wou13 be in t.he best interest of the City of Anaheim. Sazc~. i.rrev~cable c~ffer to dedicate shall be re~orded c~nr,urrently with the f inal •tract map . (16) That ~ minimum ?0 scale pl.ot plan shocving a11 on-~i.t~ improve- ments including euve overhang and prop~sed locati.on of air-- c~nditioni:~g equi~ment be submitted for building permits. RECESS - Chairmai~ Gauer declared a recess at 3:55 p.m. RECONVENE -- Chairman Gauer r~convened t~e meeting a~ 4:05 ~~.r~. wi.~.h -~ all Commissioners being present. e ~r MINUTES ~ CITY YT~JINN:INC COMMtSSTUN, May 13 ,].97A 7A~25S Ti~'CI~ASSIFICIITION - PUP.,IC HEARTiYG. CARI. KA~tCEi~;IZ, 1200 Nort.h Fiarbo~: T3~ulcyv~ar~, NO, 73-74~57 Anr~hetm, Ca• 92803, Owner= ~ICHARD ~. HUS'TObI, J 09 :3auth ""-"" Cl~~menti.ne F3treet, Anahcaim, Ca. ~2805, P.gQnt; roguQetinc~ thaL• pro~erty deecribe:d as: An irr~y+~lar).y--~hapod parcel of land consisLing o~ appxuximatel.y 3.4 acres havi~iy a f~ ntag~ ^i approx3~- matal,y 31G £eet on th~~ north s~.de of Romnoya f)~::lve, having a. m~x tmum deptl-~ of. approximaialy 470 fc~et an~ b~ir~~ located ap~roxlmatel.y 21~ f~~t east at tha c~nt:orlit-e of H~rbor Bculevard bo 2'E'Ca.A3$1f1HC~ from tk1P. M-1, L]CHZ' INDUSTRIAL, ZONE to the C-2, GEN'.~.e"2AL C:~'MP'[ERCIAL, 70NE. No one sFpeared in upposita.on re aubj~ct: petition. Al.t.hough tY~e SL•atf R~port t~ the i'lanni.r-g Com;~iasloil dated r~ay 13, 1974, wae~ not acr ~d a± ~he put>l.ic hearinq, it i:, referrec] to r~nd mad~ a pazt c~f tl~e n,inut.~~s . t4r. Richard Hustori, the ager~t for thc~ pe:t~.tioner, appear.r.d before rhe ~ommir~-- aion and s~ated thF~ S4af.f R~apor~ covered rhe ~roposal ve,ry well and he was ha~py with tha rer.ommendatic~naT howev~r, hE~ c,uestian~d Condition N~. 10 whiuh skr~r_c~d "That ttie subject property ahtsll be developed t~~ meet the yiLe devElnp- mcani:, standards of t.hn C-1, G~nnral Cnmmexcit~l, Zone," since hP was reque~ting C-2 zonir-g. TH~ ~?UBLIC HE1~RiNG 4VAS CLOSED. As3istaiit Zonir~g Supe.rvisor Phillip Schwart~e n~tr~d f~r the Commi~si.on L•hat the s~.ibject de~~~lopmen~k m~:t the si1:e development standarct~ for the C-1 Zone, per ~.h~ plans as submitted. Commissionar ~lorley inqui.red if the petitior.er was leasing any land fr~m the Sdnta Ana Regiaker for aclditional p~rking, and Mr. Huston stat~d that was a possibilit~, however, he did nat need additi.onal parking. Commissic~ner King noted that he had viewec? the subjeot property in the field with Commissioner Morley and, in his ~pinion, the proposal was an eMCellent project. for the s~ibject area. Cammissioner Iting offered a moti.on, seconded by Cummission~r Johnson and MOTiON CARRIED, that the Planning Commission recommends to tl~e Ctty Council that the subject project be exempt from ~he requirement to pr.epare an Environ- mental Impact Re~ort pursuant to the provisions ~f 'the California Er.viron- mental Quality Act. C~mmi~sioner King offPred Resolution No. PC74-100 and moved for its passag~ and adoption to recommend to the City Council approval of Petit~ion for Reclassification No. 73-7~-57, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On rr~ll call, the forEgoing resolution was passed by th~ following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Comptono Farano, Herbst, JoYinson, King, Morley, Gauer NOES: COMMISSIUNLRS: None ALiSENx': COMMTSSIONERS: None VARIANCE NO. 2597 - PUBLIC HEARl'NG. RICHAP~D GFBHARDT, 2928 North Reiawood, Pearia, Illinois 61604, Owner; RO~~RT SULLTVAN, 105 East Lincoln Avenue, .Anaheim, Ca. 92805, Agent= requesting WAIVEP. UF MAXIMUM PERMITTED WALL SIGN AREA TO C~I3STRUCT A WALL SIGN on prop- erty described as: A zectangularly-shaped parcel of lar-d having a frontage of approxi.matel~- 57 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maxa.mum d~pth of approximately 1.40 feet, and being lo~ated aprroximately 140 feet west of the centQrlin~ of Ohia Street. Praperty preaently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCT_AL, ZONE. Nc one ap~~ared in opposition to subject p~fcition. A~though the Staff Repor.t to the Planning Commission dat~d Ma! 13, 19'14, was nat re~d at th~ public hearina, it is ref_errPd to and made a part of the mtnutes. MTNLITE!a, CITY PI,ANNING COMM?>>ICN~ ~Amy 13, 1974 74-2~~ VARIANCE NO. 2597 (Cont.i.nue3) Mr. David Gatay, 2Q24 Weet T~iricolr~, Maheim, 1lttarney f~r the petitioner who was also ~reaent, apF~earc~~~i before the Commission ~nd stated the positlon of the petitioner was indicated for th~ muAt part in thd~.r. ~~etitiont und that tr~~ requestc~d s;yn was so r.hoy could solicit more businQSa, He present~d photoc~raphs of th.A structure, signing, and th~ aurrounding area in support of the petition. THE PUCiL~C F{FARIN'G 'WA5 CLOSED. Commi~aionF~r Herhgt noted that the rdas~n thQ subject pe~.ition was r.~quir~d was ~hat a residenti.al strur,ture wAa b~ing usPd rathez tha:~ a commexcial b~:il~ing, and Mr. ~ateX ~tated as oaon aa the petiti.oner built up hi.~ busi- ness, h~~ p1a~1s were to take c3own the presen.t structure which was an old huuae= that ~he si:ructure set back off the aLreet and the p~trons could r~ot tell he was tl~cret ~that he and the petitioner eatimated that it would be ap~roximately one year before they cou18 justify the $30,000 to $40,U00 improvements nece:~sary to makp the structurP corifoi-m as ~n office ~r atore bu'~lding sirnilar i~o othery in the area. Commissic.er Morle+y noted far the petifioner. that ttie proposEd siqn might not bE adequate and that a monument-type sign miqht be more appropziatE so that it could be seen from the stre~t. Mr. Gatey stated tllat a sign similar to thP sign that was on the building previously would bE~ sufficient as auch a sign would line up wi.th the front of the adjacent wig store and it would be a monument-type sign= that there was xeall,y r-o reason for the structure to be a residence; that from the inside of the structurP it could not be identified as a residence; tnat the structure probably :~houlcl not be at the sul~jact location and if the peti- tioner was success£ul in his business it would not be there long. In reply to quest.i~ning by Commissioner Compton regarding the used car lot appearance at the rear of the subject property, with at least one car being up on blocks, Mr. Sullivan• the petitioner, appeaxed before ~he Commission and stipulated that ttie autoinobi.le that was preseutly up on blocks wottld have wheels p].aced an it and removed upon appr.oval of the sub~pct petition. Mr. Sullivan further stated that there were two other cars parked at the rear of the property wltich weze presently operable and being used. In reply to questioning b}~ Commissioiier Far~:~no, Assistant Zoning Supervisor Phillip 5chwartze advised that for the most part, the other signs in tize area were conforming signs. Comcnissioner Farano then not~d that faur tim~s the peimitted sign area ~aas too much, in his opinion. It was noted that the Uirector of Develogmen~;. Ser~vices had determined thd,: the proposed activity fel.l within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1 of thP Ci*yo uf. Anaheim Gui.delines to the Requirements for an ~,nvironmental. Impact Report and was, therefore, categorically exempt from the r~quirement to file an EIR. Commissioner Herbst of~ered Resalution No. PC74-]~1 and moved fox its passage and adoption to grant Petit~on far Variance No. i597 for a period of. two years subject to review and subsequent consideration fox' extension by the Planning Commission and/or City Coi.ncil L!pon written request by the peti- tioner, subject to the foregcing findings and stipulations by the petitioner., and subject to conditions. (See Resolution i3ook) On roll ca11, the foregQing re;~olution was passed by the following vote: AY~S: COMMISSIONERS: Coinpton, Herbst, Johnson, King, Morley, Gauer NOES: ;:uMMISSIONERS: Farano ABSENT' COMMISSIONERS: None ~ ~ ~ t~NUT~~, C1;TX PL,ANN7.NG C~MMTSSION, May 13, 1974 74-261 CONDITIONAL USIs' - PUALIC 1I~A12TNG. FOREST L~1WN CENI~TERY AS50CIAT~ON, P. O. PERMIT N0. 1468 t3ox 11.51, Gl.endale, Ca. 91209, ~wnort ;JAMES A. ARN~RTCH " ANp HAROLD MOItRISON, P. s~. Box 1151, Cleniiale, Ca. 91209, Agen~i reguestiny permi~aitin to CONVERT AN ~XISTING N~DICRL-D~NTAl', OFN'IC~ CQMPLEX INTn A PLANN~D UNIT CpMMERCTAL D~VE~,OPMEN'r WAIVING REQUIR~MEN'1' THAT LOTS MCIST ABU'1' A PUBLIC STREET AND MINTMUM REQUIFtED PARKTNG ~n propQrt.y doscribed as: A r~ctangu].arly-shaped parcel of land c~tiai.sting of approximately 6 acres havi.ng z frontage of appraximately 762 feet on tlte north side of Romnoy~ L~r.•ive, having a maximum depth of approx.i~ m~tel.y 334 ~~et, ancl beinq located approximately 228 feet west of the canter- line o1 Euclid Strc:et. Pxvperty ~reaently classi.fiPd C-1, GENERAI• COMMEKCIAL, ZON~. No one appeared in oppositi.~n to suUject petition. Altho~iqh tP-e Staff Report to the Plann~ng Commiasion datad May 13, 1974, w~s not rea~~ at the public hearing, it is referrec~ tc and made a part of thE minutes. Mr. James Arnerich, agent for the petitionei, appeared before the Commission and stated the subjeat. property was pxesentlX developed wii.h a medir.al-dental ccmplex and h~ reviewed the background of tha property ~o the point where it was purchasec~ by Forest Lawn CemEtexy Association in 1960 because of Financial difficulties; that the proj~ct had been started in 1958 and in 196U when it w~s taken r~ver by the petitioner, it was agreed they wou].d pick up claim:~ in excesa of $100,000 to continue the development of the property; that the origin~al developer comple~ed approximately 40,000 square feQt wt~ich was about one-half of the complex; that the proposal at that time was to l.ease the suites with an option ta purchase in saa.d leases; that some of the doctors had exer- cised their aption to purchase and the petitioner now found that in order to deed tY~e propertx to tiie pr.o~pec:tive purchasers with contracts of sale, rhere were no parc~l map or subdivision maps recoraed; that in 1958 there was no requirement in the City Cods for parcel maps and the parcels could be deeded by metes and boi~rids; that the purpose of the public heariny at thi~ time was to divide the property into parcel.s so that thE c~octor.s who had exercise~] their op~i.ons co~a].d receive a deed and conveyance at the t.ime of the purchase; that in connection with the division of the property it was found that some ~f the parcels did not have the required amount of parlcing, however, there were cross easements for the benefit of all tenants and all owners of the property, giving fihe right of pa:ckinq anywhere on the property and, as a matter ~f Eact, on the adjoining commerci~il development whi.ch encompassed the beauty parlor, restaurant, e~c., which was not a parz of the subject applica- tion, there was a cros~ easement to the subject property tor parking; and that some of the proposed lots would not ab~t on a public street but that prohlem was probably tak~n car~ of by ~he easements tha1: had alr~ady been recorded for ingress and egrsss which were commo.-type easements giving each tenant rights over tha entire property. THE P~]B1~TC EiEARING WA~ CJ~OSED. Commissioner Herbst inquired if the buxldings an the plans with the lines drawn through them had separate waZls or c~mmon walls, how it was praposed to get ar.ound the Bu~.ldirig Code, and Mr. Arnerich stated the wa11s were cnmmon walls and, in his opinion, there was no difference between owning or leasing iche units and the easements would take care of crossing over prop- erties for the purpose of repairs, maintpnar;ce, etc. Commissioner ~iPrbst noted that the Ci.ty could not waive the Building Code or deviate from it; and that tYie only way the proposal could be handled would be through the cond~minium oz air space cancept. Mr. Arnerich stated that tre nriginal developer began the project with sale of par~els of land and, as such, wexe executed prior to the time the pPti- tioner purchased sut~ject property; that they wer.e not in a p~sition to t~ll. the doctors or praspective purchasers that their cdntracts ~aere invalid, and Commissioner Herbst no•ted that that app~ared to be thc onlv a~prcach to the sztuation and that the pet~tioner would have the right to sell air space and give the purchasers the right to use the buildings and be a member of the condominium; and that the original contracts appeared to have been done il- legally without parcel maps. ~ ~ MINUZ'ES , CI7.'X k'[~ANNiNG COMA1iSSiON, N,ay 13 , 1974 74-262 CONAITIONAL USI: PFRMIT N0. 1468 (ContinuQd) Mz. Arneri.ch si:aLed i:hat the auites could be combi.~lQd intu lo~s i:u avoid splitting up a building. ny In~p~ctor Dan Van Dorpe noted for the Commir~ion that l'htef Bui~di basi.cally . every building had comY~ined sower systemg where ~th~ wasto lin~+s were ly ter su w f bi gingle but the pp r~ or ng and, in some instan~es, there was seprarate p~.um City had n~ way of knowinq if there were s~~arate sewnr aystema. Arner:ich ref.erred to a se~tion of ~the Building Cocle whicll he bdlievad Mr .. allowed crossYng over o~her. prope~°ty t'% get ~,0 3ewer lines wher~ there wer~: two residences or ~wo Uuildings on two lot~. Van nor~e nai:ed ~hat two builc~ings ~n the same lot could be coritiectod if Mr . t.hey were ~ander thE~ game ownership but not t.w~ bt~~ilc~ings on separate lots. Mr. Arnerich stated. that with the cr_oss ease-nents for the pur~ose of repair and cnaintenancc~ ~hat there would be no problem. CommiasioneY Her:+st iloterl that he w~uld not vote for 1 proposal that would give the City prnhlems yEar after year. Mr. Arnerich sta~ed re~7arding the sew~r that r~e did not see how this could create ~~roblems f.ur the City 3ince it was privately cwned• Commissi.oncr Herbst r~oted that the propasal was not in conformance ~aith th~ suilding Cade due to the manner in whiah it was bei.ng separated and that the Cude could not be waived. Mr. Arn~rich quest.ioned Conditinn No. 5 as set forth ~n the Staff ~teport with reference to legal ar~~-angements. Commis~ioner Compton noted that with the proposal as submitted, if any problen~s developed, how w~ul.d the easement be resolved when several prQperty ownPrs ~,~ere invo].ved, to wh.ich Mr. Arnerich stated there would be a committee of property owners with right a~ easement to provide for maintenance and that an amendment was proposed to the restrictions and easements that in the event there was a problem of maintenancA on a given pr~perty with an awner not tal%ir~g care of it properly, the committee would do the work and assess the property owner, witli th.e assessm::nt becoming ~ 1ien. In reply to questioning b~y Commission~r Herbst, Mr. F.rnerich stated the C~&Rs had been apprcved by the Real F.state Commission pre~aious].y and those could probably be apr~roved with the amendment. Ir- reply to questioning by Comr~lissionEr Compton, Mr. Arnerich stated that if any of tha property owners decided downstream that they did not ~~ant to belong to the association, they would 3ti11 be subject to the assessme;~t righta arid authority of the cc~mrnit~ee: and that subject property ~wnexs vaould not be exempl fron~ maintaining their p.rope;:ty or exempt from assessmenL• if they did not maintain their property. Mr. Arnerich further stated that the tenants and ttir~ purc•Y.asers had to pay f.or common maintenance through a monthly assessment. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commissioa tha~ the differer.ce between the proposal anci a condominium was that the association owned the comman g'cou.a~ and in the proposal there was nothing owned in common other than the easement rights ander ~he small lot subclivis-on. In reply L-o guestior.ing by Chairman G~uer, Mr. Arnerich stated thE association was sE~t up ir. 1a60 and there< w~s election of a conuni~tee by t;ze ~roperty owners , said comrn.i ::~ee havix~~~ authority similar to a board of directors, and the docto~s took their property subject to the declaration~ whi~h had been recorded; and that there were 40 r3octors and 58 lots involved. ~ ~ MTNUTES, :~1'I''Y PLANNING COMMISSION, May 13, 1974 ~4'263 COIJDITIANAL USE Pri:RMI'r N0. 1468 (Continued) Commiseionp~- Morley nated ~ha~ the pr.oblem cou:Ld p.robably bQ aolve~d through an air ~pacE3 condol,~tn•lum-type agreement and Mr. ArnArich roiterate~d t~h~sr that wotild be coiitrary to th~ c~xisting ac~reement be~ween the fQrmer owr~c~ra and the cloctors who had alr.ea~dy exercise3 their opti.ant a•:d that tho op~i~n was for land not only under the auita but i.n front c~f the aui~e. In reply to question~.r-g by Cammisr+ione.r Mc~rley, Mr. I,owry advisad ~.hat he did not knaw i.f the contxacts to the dc~c:tars which had beon rxecuted pr~.or wFra ].ega~l~ hawever, the subdivision would not be legal at the present time under the~ Fluilding and 'Plumbing CociF; that he was riot aware of what ~.he Cad~ provicied in 1958 and that iincler tYia pr~~sent Code, subdivisian wiLh leasehold. coulci not ~~e legal wittiout a yubdiv~.aion or par.cel map~ that thRre was an existing associatian but: as to h~aw effp:ctit~e ~they were ~rould depend upon how actively th~y worked at i.t arid the Ci.ty could not snforce that t~~pe ac~ivity. Commissio:~er ~ohnson noted that he ha.d studiecl the proposal and if it h~d b~~en samewhere close to the r~quirements, the Commission would be in a be~ter position •!_o reason wi.th itt that the grob].ems were too va~uminouc~, wi.t:h the wall s or :lot lir.es running thr•ouqh suii:es ; that if at some time in the futur~ an ~-wner u-anted to bui ld a new bui lding , c;onceivably the ].ot line could run thr~ugr~ tlr,~e rtiddle of a ror~m, to say no*h.i.n,y of tha sewer probl.em; th~st the electrical could be resolved with r.~nsiderabla amounts of funds b~ing ~xpended; that the suggestion ta have the association pui-chase the property and use the condominium v~nicle tc~ d~.~vide it would prevent probl~ms that were otherwise antic:lpate~3 and ~vhlch miqht fall under the respon~ibilitiy of the City in the futurPt anci that he r.o~uld nat support a vot:~ in favor of the project at this t~mz. Mr. P~rneri~h r~iteratec~ his questioning c;oncerning Condition No. 6 as se~ Eorth i.n th~ Staff Report, and suggested thlt if the Staff inembAr who devel- oped thai: c~~ndition cauld explain it, some clue might be urxveiled as to the solution to the pr~blf:ms bein~ discus~ed, and Mr. L~wry advi.sed that the conditiori in questiun Yi1d been px'epared by Staff in the even~t tr-e ~ lanning Commissic~n acted fav:,rably on the proposal sc~ that the City co~xld a~ttempt in some way to .make the buildings conform to the Cod~-; and that althnugh Staff did not know exactly how tk-E~y c~uld accomplish coiitormance, they c~~uld try. Commissic~ner Farano noted that until such time as the Commission could make the project conPorrt~ to the Building and Plumbing Code, he could not vote in favor of a.t . Commissi~ner R'ing inquired if the petitioner had ec~ntacted the doctor~ for their feelinys regarding purchasing air space, and Mr. Arnericf~ stated that he had npt don~: so in view of the fact they were t~~ying to work out the proposed solutiori to the problem. Mr. Rrnerich continued by stating there were only s~ven situa~tions where a lot line ran ~ch~:ough the buildings and that coul.d be e].iminated by combining those suites into one lot. Cammissiuner Farano noted that any serious consideration by the Plaz~ning Commission on s~ubjeat proposal would give rise to the same kind of situat~.on as far as the division for sale of apartment buildings ~~aQ concerned; and that if ~he rationale was available for the subject type development, it would also be available for apartment build'_ngs. Mr. Arnerich requested a continuance to the mseting of June 10, 1974, in order to try to resolve some of the questions raised by the Planning Commission. Commissione~: Farano oftered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kiny aiid MOTION CARRIED, to continue the public hearing and considera~ion of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1468 to the meeting of June 10, 1974, as requested by the petitioner. ~r ~I s MINUT~£, CSTY PL7INA~ING COMMISSIQN, Ma.y 13 , 1974 74_l~4 EfVVIRpNMENTAL IMPACT - PUAr IC HFAKING~. DUtiN PI20PERTI~S COI7P. , 2009 E~s~ RrpUR~T IJO. 1.23 ~dinger, Sant~ Ana, Ca. 92701, Owner. Prop~rty "' ' de~cribed a~: An irr~gularly-ahaped parcel. of land RLCI~A5SIFICATION conoi.sting of ap~~roxi.mai:a~y 13 acres locat~d at the N0. 73-74_55 ~ northwest zozner af Magnolia Avenue and LA Palmc~ "' Avonuo, having a~pr~ximato frontages UP J.150 Feot VARTANCE NO. 2598 on t1~e west s~.de c~f Maynoli.n AvNnue and 1.250 feot - - on the north side c~E Ltt FAlma AvanuQ, havi.ng a maximwn CONDITIONAi~ US~ dupth of approximatoly 1250 f.eet. Prapexty presently PERMIT NO. 1~162 clar~ai.fied M-1, LTGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZnNE. TENTATIVE MAP OF REQLIESTED CLASSTFTCATION : C-1, GElJER11L COMMERCIAL~, TRACT N0. 86G0 ZONE RE~UESTI:D VARIANCE : WAIVER UF (Aj MINIMUM RE~UII2LD PAT2KING, (B) MA}tIMUM EIE:IGHT OF ~TRUCTURE, ~1ND (C) TEMPORARY D'ISPI,AY OF I3ANNF.R: TO ESTP.BLISH A COMMERCIAL CENTER. REQUFSTED CONDITT.ONAL USE: PEFtMIT ON-SALE LI~~T?~R E~TAIiLISHMENTS AND TIl~ATRES TENTATIVY~, 'rRACT ItEQU~ST: ENGTN~FkZ: WII,~,IANI~ON & SCFiM7D, 1535 ~ast First Str.eet, Santa ~1na~ Ca. 92701. 5ubject proporty is proposed for subdivision into 34 M-1. zoned lots and 3 C-1 zoned lots 1Lota 1, 2 and 3). One person indicated his presec~ce in opposition to subj~ct petitions. A.~sistant Zoning Supervisor Philli.p Schwartz~ r.ead the Staff Report t~ the Plantiing Conunission dat.ed May 13, 1974, ar-d s-id Staff Regort is referred to as if set forth in full in the minutes. Commi~sionGr King noted that he had a conflict o.f intere:k as defined in the Anaheim Municipal Code Section 1.1.4U0 and Gavernment Code Sectiun 3625 et seq., in that he ewnEd a stock interest in Pacific Lighting, and Dunn P.~p- ertiF:~ was a subsidiary part of Pacific Lighting Corp.; that pursuant to ttle provisions of the foregoing Codes he was hereby declaring to the Chairman that he was wi.thdrawing from the hearinq in connection w.ith the subject petitions listed as Item 9 ~n the Planning Commission ayer,da and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon; and that he had not disc~issed the matter. with any member of the Pl~nning Cc~mmission. There- upon, Commissioner :ting left the Council Chamher at 4:40 p.m. Mr. Bil.l Gray, Vice President of Dunn Pr~parties Corporation, the propert} owner, appeared before th~ Commissi~n and stated that a t~tal park concept had Leen taken in': account and that~ the ~: esentation w~uld be in two parts, being an industiial portion and a commercial portion; that the property was acquired in October ].973 az~d, being an irregulaily-shaped parcel, the infl«s- trial t.ract was proposed ~o be deve~oped on the northerly ex~remeties oF the property extending to the 3anta Ana Freeway and ~the high~quality commercial developmt~nt was p.roposed for that portion oi the property fronting on L~a Pa1ma and Magnalia :~veni~es. He further stated there woulc: be some questions raised concezning some of the recommended conditions of appxoval. Mr. Richard Brooks, the project architPCt, appeared befor_e the Commission and stated the project waa uniqu2 and he explained the configuration of the land and the suirounding land uses , which he describea as also being uniyue; that a great deal of p].anning had gone into defining what would assist them in developing a qua3ity circulation pattern through the entire deve~.opment of the property; that a total site planning concept had been utilized to inte- grate the commercia] portion ot the project with the industrial portion anc~ to provide f~r the ansition; that the praposa~ was ~ business park and r..ot an industrial park, as such. Mr. Brook~ explained th~ size of the lats being prop~sed and the parking to be provided, ar.d stated it was a challenge to design a project with every~.hing fixed araund in a community, creating a park-like seiting which wus vi~ually ~pen; that CC&Rs would be dev~loped for the project and there would be a design review board; and that they had developed a master i.~ndscap;+.ng plan. ~ ~ MIWU'x'F'a'~ CITY PLANN'T.NG (;UMMTSS]'.ON, M~1y 13, 1974 74-2G5 ENVIRONM£NTAL Ih~ACT REYOR'i' r'~• 123, RECLA:5IFICA'rION Nf.~. 73-7A-5~, VARIJINCE N0. ~59Q, CONDITIONF-L USr pEF2MIT NQ. 1462 AND T~N'PATIVE MAP vI' T1211CT N0. 8660 (continued) -_ . _ - ,____~~_~ - Mr. "bob" f3odr.el~ Smith, rQpraeo:-cing the potitioner, aFapoared be~ore the Commissian ~nd atated the projoe:t was very comprehensive~= that the f.irm of Coldwe.ll F3nnker was wor.king with aeveral prc,~pectiva te~lunts and although the tenante for. the con,r,~ercial nartian hr~d not baen firmed up by sigriing, the plan was conclusi~~a i that includod in tlie pra ject was an 85-fao~ high aviary whiah would be locatc~d centr~lly bstwoen t.hQ three proposod r~ata.urants and large bannerg v;ould bo flown from the to~a af the aviary far 1~lentification purpoees of the dave:lopmentj ttiat the building canstructian would be all wood dnd m~talT tY~at the parking and streote in tho pi-nject would be 1ow~r than the general elevation of the property And tha overa].J. effect wouid be kc~ see the buildinys and the landscaping but not 1:he carsi ~hat tha design for thQ restau- rant wAa to f.ocus ~n the water~ th~t the methocl of desiqn w~s to give horizon~ tal distance to ~:he aaen s~ace tar-ding to reduae tk~e buildings in height; that the intent was not to have backsidea to any of the bui.l.dinc~~ in the cammercial area= that they were seekiny approval or. a roquest. to come back before th~ Commiesion wi.th preci3~ plans since they had indicat.ed ~r.ecise se~tbacks, trasYi areas , and ingre~s and egres s~ that they wer.e pro~~osing larger than rec~uir.ed parking spaces which could be reduced to obtain more ~paces i.f desir~d; and that the theme of the business park was to adher~ primarily to the people i.n it and would relate to the businer~s oommunity. Mr. Smith made a sl.ide presentation o£ one of th~ir. projects in Santa Ana which was simi.lar to th.at being proposed but wi.thout the water con~•~pt. Mr. Gray aclded that the propused design concopt would be bpnefi.cial to the City and thP surrounding areai that concerning t't~e secondary acces~ which was of concern t~ the Fire De~arCment, they had met with the Fize De~artment and it was not necessary to go outside the project for that access; that, looking at the incltl.trial pc~rtion of the property, duwn the long narrow portions there would be a second~ry access between the subject praperty and that of Delco-Remy, sai,d accesa heing on the subject property; the secondary acc.ess wotild be on the north property line and there woua.d actually b~ an alleyway with circular access back into the subject. property; thai: they raa been unsucce3aful in acquiring access Erom the Little League fiE1d; further, that they had taker~ care of the severe drainage problems on the site ancl the EIR addressed itself to th3t pointj i:hat the Citl of Buena Park had taken ar, acti~n to tie the storm drain on the subjec.t property to the stoxcn draii~ on Dale Avenue which they h.oped solved the drainage problem. Concerning Condi- t:ion No. 9, as set forth in the Staff Report for Recla~sification No. %3-74-55, hF suggested new wording to read: "Prior to the introduction of an ordinanc~ rezoning the individual lots of the commercial portion of the sub jP.:t proper~~y, Conditions ~os . 1, 2 anc. 7, above-rnentio:ied, shall be completed. Ea^.h lot may be rezonec~ individually as conditions are complied with. ;he provisions or rights grant:ed by this resolution sha11 r.ecame null and v~id by action of th:, City Council unless the conditions are complied with within one year f.rom the date hereaf or sur.h further time as the City Council may~ grant" ; thaL• the reason ttiey were requesting the foregoing change of verbiage was that the industrial portion of the property curr_ently zoned M-1 was proposed to be left M-1; that they were presently in working drawings anci would be ready to submit to the Building Division for plan check witliin four weeks; that the indastrial portion would be constructed in two phases with the portion adjacent to the commercial property in the first phase, which would be approximately 3q1,000 squ~re feet of industr~ al space with tlie remaining industrial to be developed at <~ lat~r time j tr 31- conce.rning Condition No. 9 for Ten~ativt: Map of Tract No. 3660, the fina~. map aacording tc the coiidition could not: be filed unti;. sach time as the commercial develop~nent specific plan was approved by th~ Planning Commisa~~^ ?nd City Council= that they would request that the condi- tion be altere~i, changed or deleted, and preferably del.eted in order i:hat they could begin t2~ .r industrial develapment, including the stre~ets f.or the entire pro;~ect, utili:ies, etc. Thereupon, Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Cemmission ttiat Mr. Gray's suggestiAn concerning Condition No. 9 for the subject reclassificatian would be accent.able; h~wever, he would suggest t!-,at the condition as word~d in the Staff Report remain and that another standard condition could be ac~ded ~ ^A . Mx1VUTES ~ C:I7,'X ~'i~A'~N~NG COMNI?SSION, May 13, 1974 74-266 ENVlRONN1ENTAL IMPl~CT R~PORT NQ. 123, RE ;LASSIF'ICATION Nq. 73-7d-55~ VARIANCE N0. 2598, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1462 AND 'i'ENTATIVE MAP OP' 'PKACT N0. 8660 (Continued) ~..~ ~ -- -- - ---~- which was usua.lly used when a development occurred in phasea, that ozdinancea may k~e r.ead on eac.h parcel Af3 the develoger was read,y to comply with condi- tions th a t wou~d af~ect that individual par.cel. That reqardiny ~he doletion af Condir ion No. 9 for Tentative Map of Tract No. 8560, Mr. Gray~s augge~stion thQre would alsa seem appr~priate. Mr. Clyde Haugan, representing De1co~Remy ~ivision of General M<stora Corpora- tion, appeAred boE~r~ the Cammis~ion in appoaition to aub ject p~~titions, as the prope rty ownar locuted ~o the ~north of the aubje~t property propased ta be developed with comn-ercial uRes , and stated commercial zoning next to the indu~tria 1 property was nut eompatible; that the D~lco-Itemy oper.ation was six days a week, 24 hours a day and th~~y sPriously objected to tYis traffic that would Ue cominq in and aut af the prop~. ~-t~y adjoininc~ ttiem, which was Lot 3 of the propoaed commeraial devetopmen~ an<] proposed to be occul-led by the Allstatc~ l:nsurance Company~ and tha'~ thay wou.ld have no objectians to the commercial development ~£ 'Lots ~ and '2. In rebut tal, Mr. Gray stated the pro~~osPd ~ommercial d~velopment should be cnncezn~d with being next to an industrial use r~lther than as ~~tatec~ by Mr. Haugan; that the wall., adjoining th~ Uelco-Remy property wc~uld be com~- pletely rloyed off and tl~ere wou].d be a parking buffer= that tl~e axisting fence woulcl remain iz~L•act; that the Allstate buildiny ~~ould co~tri.bute to ttie window coming off M,ig lolia for th~ industri.al development; that tlie archi.tect ura of the Allstate structure would be pleaaing and the landsca~ing for it could be control7.edJ that in tYie plan, as noted tn the EIR, the build- ing setba ck was at 3U feet so tha~ the landscaping berm could be atarted at ;, N: ~~perty li.ne to create a greenbelt; and that the id~ntity of the industrial portion meant a great deal to the developers, and the Allstate facility was the only use that would be consiclered a~. thati point of the pra~eck. THE PUBLTC H~AktING 4VAS CLU~~~. In response to qu~stioning b~~ Commissioner Faran~, Mr. Gray si:ated they were t~resently in working drawings for the Allstat~ structure, and precise plans would be ready within a few weeks, as well as the site plans ~~nd Pxterior elevations; that there was a tenant farmer on. the proper'~y with a lease which would expire the =i.rst of July, and the ~ntent of the developer was to begin grading of the entire site ancl maki~~g ': street improvements and to begin construction af the industrial buildir._~ for Phase I, as well as the canstruc- tian of the Allstate structure, as of July~ 1, 1974; ~tiat ther•e was still quite a lot of work to be done to get working drawings started an t:he cammercial portion, which would be contingent upon rize Planning Commission action on the subject petitions; that the westerly p~rtion of the commer.cie~l property was an office building which would probably be constructed in conjur~ction with Phase II of the i.ndustrial development; and that work on khe pr.oject would d~finitea.y begin on July 1, 1974. Commis~~oner Farano nated for the petitior-er that the proposed project wa.s beauti.fixl anc~ he would like to see it come into the City of ~-naheim on a completion basis; tha~. he was no~ in favor ~f the long projec;i:ed illusionary project that laokA~l good on paper but never came to p~ss; thr3.t he was trying to abta in eome outlook regarding ths timing for completxon of the entire project; that apparently the developex had proapective :.essees but if thA ].es~ees did not come into being ur if thay Ghanged their mind, the ~ity would have a large piece of land rezoned based upon a given project whi.:;h might na~t come into being~ that short of precise p?ans, he did not beli~ve he cou].d vote in favo r of the pro~ect at this time; that there had been too much speculativ~ zoning in ~he City and he was incZined to think that until there werE some firm commitments and prPcise plans , he wo;ild not vote for a conditional use pezmit or rezoning; and that he was not in favor of emasculating a pi~ce of land whiah ~v~uld otherwise probably remain inclus*_rial. In rebuttal, Mr. Smith stated that the tenants for the project were ready ~nd the drawings vere being pr.eparedj that th~ workirig drawings for the rsstau- rants were underway; that they would beg~in the precise plans right acaay follow- ing app roval oE subject petitions; and that they had had specific meetings with ~roappctivE tenants who wanted the assurance that they would be able to proceed . ~ ~ MINUTES ~ CITY. PI~ANNING COMMI S.~iTnN, May .13, 1974 74~26? F.NVIRONM.F.NTP-~ TN~'ACT REPORT NO. 123, RFCI,ASSI'FICATION N0. 73-74-55, VARtANCF N0. 2598, CONDITIONAL' USE nE W+1tT N0. 1462 AND T1:NTATIV~ MT~P OF TRACT N0. 8660 ( C~nti nua~_._._. - - -_ - - - - ^ ______.__ - Cammi.ssioner Farano nated ttzat if the peri.t.ioner liad s~ecifias rc~gax~ding who the tenanta woul.d bc~, etc. , the ConunissiQn wauld bo iittHr.ested in po knowing. Chairman Gauer noted for th~ Commiss~on tliat thc~ p_-cpoeal sQemad ~o be fairly defin9.te, and tha~ th~ only concern was fox the com~u~rcial b~ing next ~o existing indus:.rial proper~v . Commi~sioner Herbst n~ted that the ~r~posed circulatian pattern for the induatrial buildings was ve ry poort that there would be truck traf.P.ic, depend- ~ng upon the type tenants ok,taa,nadi thRt if L•he entire 30].,000 square feet was warehousing apace, the ~Qtitioner might be ttble ~o get by with it, howev~r, the i.ngress and egress was bottlenecked and this cou]d bo s~rioiis around 5:00 in the aft.ernoon. In rebuttal, Mr. Gr.ay stated although th~ cir.c~l~ation ~afitern wAS r-ot the be~ '.., it was acceptable due to the shapF of the propert;y; and tha* by creating a thoroughfare, unfortunate?X there w~uld not bEj mur.h property left to bP devel~ped, and Commi~sione~r Flerbst thQr~ n~ted that the pro~erty in that case was probably overbuilt. Mr. Gray continued by stati_ng the width of the street in questian had be~n taken into ~~onsicl~ration; and that the secondary acces~ f.or fire proi:ection at the back of i;he propEr~y cou13 also be utilized. Commis~ionpr Morl.ey not~.. that the traf.fic in the i.ndustri~l portion of the project would be funneled to one urea which wauld creat~ a real. probler~ £or truck traffic, and l.nquir~d i.f there wou:~c~ be roc~m for a truck accesa along the De1co-Remy property. Mr. Gr~y stated the City h ad been very ~ _°ic regarding ingzess and egress due to the capacity ancl the points of a~.. ~~:ss, a.nd Commiesioner. Morley noted he would not like to see a 11 ~~f the ingress and eyr~ss being handled at one point. Commissi~ner J'ohnson noted that the Plarininc~ Con~:~~iss:ion tried consistently to ~ncourage the type of development bei.ng prop~sed, how~ver, they were addressing th~mselves to tYie circulati.on probl~ms of the inclustrial complex~ Mr. Gray explained. that the proposal was tc: enccr the in-.ustrial developm~ '' without going through the commercial develo~ment; that tra si.te was di~'~icult t~ develcp from a configuration standpoint•; Yiowever, +h:1 wer~ satisfi^~ wii.h the developm~nt plans that were b~ing pr~~sc:nte~' . i{e 1'Lx' :~z~r exglai.nec +.hat Dunn Properties was in !-he business of construc~ing $3~5 miliion of a.n..jtrial buildings in the Unitpd S c ates per ye~r, atl on ~per. laC:~ ~.1, hopi~:g tr gPt a teriant; tliat regarding the access to the in~~ustrial de~e ~ment, the City Engineer :zad bePn very conc~~rned about the intersectiion~ and ~:heir locations a1Qo_ Office Engirie~r Jav Titus advised that he was cat~fi~ient th:~~ a11 of ':he rami- .fication~ concer~z.~ny the intersections, signalizatior~, timing, etc., ;~ad been discussed •oith the £oxmer City Traffic Engineer. Mr. Herman Kimmel, the Traf•fic Engineer for the developer, appeared k,efore the Commission and stated that the long roa~lway shown on Exhibit 5 hac~ a daily traffic ~olume af 2 530 ; that from discuss.ions with the Ci~:y Traf.f ic Enqineer, the only problems anticipated wauld be at the intersections on La Palma and Magnnlia AvenuES where signals could be constructed; that al- though the developer fel t a signal would be warranted on Magnolia at some time in the future, the C itiy wanted to wait unti.l ~he signal was warranted to discuss it. Mr. Titus advised that tch e street in the induetrial devel~pment was proposed to he 52 feet wide from ~:.~r~ to curb providing 52 Peet of travelway, versus the normal residential at xe~t which was 40 feet, curb-to-curb. ~ ~ M~NU'~ES, CITX PLANNl:NG COMMISSION, MAy 13~ 1974 74~•~2G8 ENVI~2GNN~NTAT, TI~ACT R~~'C~R~ N0. ~2a. RLCLASSZ~ZGAx3:ON N0, 73~*74~55, ~~J1itTJ1NCE N0. 2'~98, CONDTT~OI3AT. USE PFRMTT N0. 1462 AND TrNxA~IVP: MAP OF TRACT 'N0. 8660 (C;on~inue~i ..~. - --- -~..- Conunissiun~r fierbs~ noted that ~he Ci.ty of Anah~~:im hRd oxperienc~d a simi].ar induEtri.al devElopm~en~ ~v~.th the Autonafi.ics complcsx and the necessary atreetF would c'~~end upon the amount of businesa thAt w~au~.d be caxried on in L•he industriAl development, in addition to how mar~y peoplc~ wera emp].oyed. In response t.o yuestioniny by Commisa~.an~r F'ar~no ::oncerninq th~ type truck or tractor unit that might be enterir-g induatr.i.aJ~ dc~velopment, Mr. Gra,y st~t~d they had a railr~ad spur available Por thei.r use, C~mmiastoner Mo~ley :~tated his onl.y cunrern was rc~~arding the truck traffic ~nd otherwise the project was beautiful. Commissiorier. Compton inquired i£ the developer. was saying there was no possible way of providing any other circulation pattern for tli~ truck traffic and Mr. Gray st~ted there was ar, alleyway adjoining the Delco-~temy property; i:h at r~lthough it was not the most advantageous, the traffic could always wander £rom parking iot to parking lot and ~ventually wind up at the atreet; that, as fAr as coming in with anather 62 or 64-foot street, the pr~ject wa~ fairly we11 locked into what was ~roposed at this time. In reply to Commissioner Herbst's quPS~.ions, Mr.. Grdy stated there was air s~ac~ but to no specific degree between the subject property and any rer~iden- tial property, as well as a masonry fence, and Commissioner Herbst noted that this was one area that would need a buffer. Mr. Schwartze read a'lettei from the City af Buena Park dated May 9, 1974, wh.ich addressed itself. to the subje~t Environmental Impact P,eport ar.d p.rovi.deci comments and recor.unendations thereto concerni.ng drainage, the impact on the residential and park facility, and the vi sual structural impact. of ttle indus- trial bui].dings backa.ng onto the public park. In rebuttal, Mr. Gray stai.ed he believed the screening between the buildings could be handled= that the st-c;rm drain problems had b~en resolved with L-he City of Buena Park; and regarc~.ing the park, the developer would be upgrading the landscaping on the property iine in the park itself. In respons~ to questioning of Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Smith stated ~h~y were recommending the pr~posed bannerG as a de corative device and thought it would b~ something to be proud of in lieu of an overall park sign, and Ccmmissioner H~rbst noted that it would be sei:ting a dangerous precedex~t. Mr. Smith continued by st~ting ~heir proj~ct in Santa Ana had the banner identificationJ that ~igns were objectionable as attention-getters; that what they were recommending was from the Rpnaissance era; that they were also proposing some signing, which was ground-mounted, constructed of wooc~. and non-lighted;, and that he realized the banners might be a pxoblem in the City, h~wev~r, they Gaere willing t~ change the height from 85 to 75 fe`t, in order to keep the banners. Zorting Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that if tYie petitioner was desirous of having on-sale beer and wine ir, the delicatessen which would be located in the office bui].ding, that could bP consider.ed by the Planning Commission al~~ng with the subject petitions, and Mr. Smith stipulated that they would Iike ta include that as part ~f their agpl.ication. In reply to questioning by Chairmaii Gauer, Mr. Smi~h ~tipulated that he rFalir•ed the bar had to be separate from a dining roon; that there were rec~uirtments concerning the size of the kitchen, and t:~e restaurant which they were currently in design for wauld have a 1:1 ratio in that respect. Nr. Roberts advised another point tha~ shauld be covered corcerned tlze out- daor eating area whicti should be recognized as a s~mi-enclosed restaurant. For clarification, the Delco-Remy representative indicated there was no inten- ~ton on the part of his company to donate property along the railroac~ to the i.ittle Lea3ue organixation. ~ ~ (rLINUr1'FS. CI7'Y PI.~ANNING COMMTSSION, blay .13, 1974 74~269 ENV3:RONMFNTIIL ~MFAC~ R~~'ORx IVO. 123~ R~~:LASSI~~;[C.?1'~'TON NV. 73-~74~a5, V1~RIANCE NO. 2598, CON~ITTONAT~ USE 1?ERNYTT N~, iasz AND TE~ITATTVE MAP AF '~R11CT N0. 8660 (Con.tinuQd) The Planning Commission entered into diacusaion rec~arding the circula~ion patterzi with respect to the induetrial dAVPlopm~nt, during which Commisalo~zQr Herbst noted tt~a.t tho plan miyht work if it was r~roperly sic~nalized, however~ tha expens~ oE sfgnaliza~.ion should not be up to ~he City of Anaheim if the propa:~ty created the need for snme. Chairman Gauer ofEered a mation, seconded by CommiA3loner J'ohnc~~n and MUTION CARRIED (Commis~ianex Kiny being absent), ~.hat Environmenta7. Impact ReporL- Nc. 123, having been considered this date by the City Plannin.g Commissior. and evi.dence both written and oral having ~eer~ presented to supplement said draft EIR No. 123, the Planning Commir~sion bel.iev~s t.klat said d.raft EIR No. 123 does conform to the Cit.y and State guidelines ;~.d the Stste of Californi.a Environmental Quality Act and, based upun such infort~~atian, does hereby recommend to the City Council that they certify said EIR No. '.23 is i,n com- p.liance witli said Environr«ental Quality Act. Chairman Gauez off~red a r~solution to recommend to the City Council approval of Petition for Recla~sification No. 73-74-55, subject to the stipulations by the petit.ion~r and subject to condi.tions. Commissioner Farana requPSteci the Planning Commi3sioners to vots against the motion until such time as the traffic circulation was reAOlved and precise p1an~ were pr.esented for the commercial p~rtiun of the development. On roll call, the foreqoing motion failed by the following vote: AXES: COMMISSIONE1::~s Johnson, Gauer NOES: COMMISSInNE R~: Compton, Farano, H~rbst, Morley ABSENT : CO~~MISSIONERa : Ring Mr.. Smith stated tY~at the developer needed thn Gommission's assurarice that i.f they performed they would, in fact, be able tu tell the bank that they ~ould proceed, which could not be done without the £unflam~ntal ariswer concerni.ng zoning. In response to questi.~ning by Commissioner Farano, Mx•. Smith introduced Mr. Ted Lawson of C~ldwell Banker Company~ of Torran.ce, and Mr. Lawson indicated to the Commission that the ~tenant.s with whom they had been working for restaurant space in the proposed development were the Red Onion, Hungry Tiger, Don's Beef, Ct~arlie Brown's, Bob Burns, and Coco's or Flagg's. It was furth~r indicated that it would be impossible to know what plans to make ahead of a signed lease since all of the restaurants operated within specific sized buildings; that the hard cost alone would be $45•OQ to $50..00 per square foot for the type architecture proposed and the enormous amount of landscaping. Commissione.r Farano clarified that the Planning Cc~mmission seemed to favor the project with the exception of the traffic problem. M!r. Gray indicated the Allstat~ lease had been signed 1nd they were in working drawings for that structure. The Delco-Remy representative appeared again bef~re the Commi~sion and indi-- cated that i£ their property was to be developed five years from this tin-e, there might be opposition from the proposed offici: building .for the Allstate Tns»rance Company, since it just might bE developed witih a waste water treat- mr,- _~roject. Mr. Gr~y sta~ed althou~h the entire property cauld be developed with industrial uses, they did not fe~~: that would b~ the most advantagpous; that he would like the Commission ta con: .~r. the amount ef e.cp~nditure so far and the fact that the ordinance would ilot be read until the precise plans had been a~praved by the Commission; and that the projer_t c~ad merit and would be beneficial to the City. ~ ~ • MINUTES~ C]:TX PLANIJ7NG COMMIaSION~ MAy 1.3~ 1974 7~1-~270 ENVIRONM]:NTAL IMPACT REPOR'1' N0. 123, It~CLASSIFTCATION N0. 73-7A-55, VARTI~NCL: N0. 2598, CONUITIqNAL USE PERMIT Nn. 1462 AIVD T~N~ATIVT MAP Ok~ '.C'Rl~-CT N0. 8660 (Continu~sd) -.-- -•--- In response to questioning by Commiasi~ner Herbst, Mr. Gray inifi.cat~8 a continuancc~ v~ould be mor~ de~irab].o than A C;G11~.81. Commiasionec Herbst noted Eor ~he petitioner thut the D~lc~-Remy prot~Frt•y would have to have nmple protection, and Mr. Gra,y stated if tY~~ property was develope~d entirely inciustrial, the Dc~lco-Remy people prn}aab].y waurd not be httppy wj.th tha~. if a building was p].ace3 right agai.nst tho propF~rty litie. Commigsi.oner FArano ir-clicated he would not be an abstruct~on~at to the prc+~ect and stat:ed the Planning C~mmission had been Able to obtai.n more information con~err-.i.ng tha proposa.l than they starte~l out with at this meet.~.:ng. Coimniss'~oner Johnson noted for the Commission that he would k~e absent fram the meeting of May 29, 1974, since he would be out of tr~e ca~xnLry. Cummissioner Herk,at offered a motion, seconded by Commie~~ioner. Far.ano anii MOTION CARRTRD (Chairman Gauer voting ''no", Commi.ss~.orier ~Jok~z~ec~n abstr~.ini~lg, and Mr. Ki.rig k~eing abaent) , to reapen ~he publ.ic hearing and continu~ cc~n-- aideration of Petitions for Roclassification IVo. 73-74~55, Variancc lto. 2598, Condii:ional Use Pcrmit No. 1462, and Tentative Map of '1'rdL^~ NC). BE~60 ".~ the meetinc~ of May 29, 1974, as requested b~ the petition~:r. COMMIS:i tONER KING RE-ENTERED THE MEETING .AT 6: 30 P. M. VARIAN~~E N0. 2599 - PUBLIC HEARING. K~N KEESEE, 1922 Sou~h Anaheim Boulevar.d, " Anaheim, Ca. 92602, awner; LFONARD LZN1)aF`:~ 1513 ~ast Chapman, 1~'ulleri:on, Ca. 92634, Agent; ~requesi:a.nc~ WAIVER OF (A) PERMITTED USES F^TD (B) MINIMUM NUMBER OF SPACES ~ TO k:S9'ABI:~ISF{ FLN AUT(~- NYJBILE LEASING AGENCY c. . property described as: An irr.eyulr:-r.ly-~haped par.cel of land con3lsting of approximately 1.4 acres having ~~ fr~nt~ne• of' approxi- mately 260 feet on the northeast s~de of An~heim t~oulevarcl, ha.vf.ng a maximtur. depth of approximately 380 feet, and being ].ocated approxim~t~cly 200 fe~:: north of the centerline of Pacif'.co Stree~t. Propert~ px~serit'~y classified M-1~ ]:,IG'iT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. No ot-~~ appeared in opposition ~to si.ibject pet.ition. A~.though the Staff ReporL to the Planning Commi~sion dated M[Zy 13, 1974, was not read at the public hearing, i.t is referred to and made a}?art of ~.he ~ir,utes . D!r. Kan Keesee, the property owner, appeared befores the Camani.ssion and stated he had maved from the premises to an inc~ustr~.al cc~mpiex and tYlat he ::ad h~en approached by Mr. Bob Mi11.s who showed an int,erest in the o~:fice for. an ~~uto- mobile leasing agency. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. P;eesee stated the structure was his home. at one ti.me <~ild that ~here were 18 ~.uii~ts on the property that were fully le~secl; tha~c ther~~ were 57, parking spacE~s pro~~ided fcr the units and during wor!cing hours the pe~k L~t~.lization had 2~een 37 spaces; that one of the tenants or.~cug~ed ?50U ~quare f~et of offic;e space and needed only one parking ::~p~cc~:.~; ancl that the tenan'~s` attituc~e was 1:hat there was more than adequate parking. Mr. r4111s appeared before the Commission and s'~ated thE anly sto•ra.ye wouyd be f~r i:he parking of automobiles that wo~xld be goi.ng out on lease; tha~ he had no intentior~ of ~elling automobiles *r~m ttie premises; that he would have apprc~ximately ~ix cars ~or lease on the premises; and ~:hat there would be a ma:citnum of three cars stored on the premises for. display pur~~ose~. In response t~ questioning by ~ommissioner Farano~ Mr.. Mi11s sta~e~1 he wds not licensed for the retail sal~~ of automobiles and that they wou~.cl have to dispose of automobiles through wi:olesalers. ~ ~ MI.NUTES, CIT'; PLANNING CUMMZ~~;ION, May 13. .147a VARIIINCL NO. 2599 (Cnnt.inued) ')~~271. In responae to questioninr~ bX (;om~r~issionor King, Mr. K~e~ee atated i.t w~uld b~e Etifficult t~ have another sign for the pr.,-posed agency; thAt the exiAting aign would b~ re3one; and tr~at ~tt no ti.me wos].d they E+xceed th~a maximum permit~ed sign area for the M--1 7,anQ. ln reapoi~se to ques~ioniny by Commiasioner Farano, Mr. tdills etatad there were kwo or four whole9nlers that he could talce tr~Q ~utomobiles ta or he cauld di3pose af rhem througY~ used car dealers. Ii: was no~ed that the UirecL•or of Development Servic.es h~!i determined that th; propos~d activity fe11 within th~ definition of Section 3.01, Class 1 of the City o£ ~lnaheim C,uideLines to the Requirementa for an Envirorimen~al Impact Re~ort an~~ was, therefore, categori.cally exempt from the requiremen~ to zil? an EIR. Commissioner. Farano offered Resolution No. PC'14-102 and rnoved for it:_, l.,ass,~ge and adop~.i.on to grant Petition for variance No. 2599 aubject to the stipula- tlons of. i:he petitioner that a maximum of three automohiles shal'1 be retained on th~ a~ibject property for display purFoses in connection wi.th the propased 7.easing oper.ation and that no si.gning, advertising or display of automobiles ahall be made to tlle general public for. th~ purpose of the retail sales of autiomobiley and that there shall be no retailing of automobilas from the subj~ct sitei th~t in order i:o determine whether an adverse effect would result from the grantiny of the waiver, the Planning Commi~sion grants a one~yPdr timH ~xtension, after which time consideratian may be g~.ven to whether the 4rai.vc.r should be extended, upon wxitten tequest by the petiti.oner; and subjeat to condi_tions. (See Resolution Book) On ro1' ca11, th~ for.egoing reso'lution wa3 pa~sed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Co:npton, Farano, Herbst, ~ohnson, King, Morley, Gauer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None 1~uENT: COMP4ISSIONERS: None FtECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARI:NG. M,~R'rHA K. SCHUN3ACHER, 213 North Helena N0. 73-74-54 Street, Anaheim, Ca. 92805, Owner; LEONARD SMITH, J.25-D South Claudina Street, Anahei.ni, Ca. 92805, Agent; request- ing that property described as: A rectangularly-shaped pazcel of land consa.sting of approximately .23 acre located at the northeast corner oP North Street and Harbor Boulevard, having a frontage of appraximately 100 feet on ~he nurth side of DTorth Street and a frontage of 101 feet on the east side of Harbar Boulevard be reclassified from the R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMI.L~t RESIDENTTAL~ ZONE t0 the C-1~ GL'NERAL COMI~RCTAL, ZONE. 1Vo one indicated tlieir pres~nce in opp~sition to subject petition, Although i:he Staff Report to the Planning Conmission dated May 13, 1974, wa.s not read at the public hearir.g, it is refer.red 1:o and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Leonard 5mith, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that th~ request for C-1 zoning ~vas for the sole purpose of con- strucir~g profc~ssional affices; and that about 1000 square feet of the apace would be for genPZal professional offices. The Planning Commission entered into discussion regarding ~he proposed dri~e- way off Harbor Boulevard, during which it was pointed out that this would probably be the only access along Harbor Boulevard in that area, and Mr. Smith suggested that the access could be for eritrance only since t.urning into the property wouLdJ~~no problen~and that would be b~tter than using the property for a big turn-ar.ound. Conunissioner Fierbst raisPd thE matter concerning C-1 zoning for the subject property and questi.~ne~d why it was not being requested for C-0 zoning, and Mr. ~~~~ith stated t-iat ^-O zoning requir~d a minimum of 20.000 square feet of arc.~~ i~owever, they would stipulate that there would be no retail sales other than incidental. Comm~ssioner Herbst then noted that ev~n though the peti- tioner stipulated to no retail sales, they could not restrict the sales in C-1 zoning. • ~ MINUTES~ C~xY FI~ANI~TINC COMMZSSION, May 13, 19%4 ~4'2~2 RECLASSTFTCATIUN NO. 73-74-54 (Continuecl) U~on inquiry af C~mmisaioner Compton, Deputy City Attorney Frank I,owry advised thah with C-]. a~ning, the propQrty could not be reatricted ta prc:~oesional offi.cea. Mr. Smi.th ~~ated tl~c:y had consid~:xed i.t would be bettier to have C-1 rather L•han C-O zon~ny, which would set a precedentt and that they would stipulate to tl~e pr~cise plans for the proposed u~:velnpment on subjQCt propexty. The Planning Commissian discuss~d the appropx•1Ate zoning for the sub~ject property during which it was pointed ou~ th~t although the zoning coulci be tied to the plans it ~~~ould indicate what the building would look like, bi~t the use of the bui~ding could cY~ange; and th~t whatever happened to the ~ubject corner parcel, would happen to ttie rest of the area. Cc~mmiss::oner Herb~t noted that C-0 zoning would probably be most appropriate for the ~raperty, urid Z~ning Supervisor Charles RobHrts advised that a variaY~re r~quest would be necessa.ry in that clse to waive the minimum area. Mr. Raberts fur~her explained that a var.iance was to waive site develapment standards and not uses. Mr. R~berts advised the Conunission that an area development plan might be in order, the cost of which was not borne Uy i:he app.li aaiit. Mr. Smith indicated that time was of the essence since the doctor5 who would b.: oc<:upying the building wanted to purchase thPir materials prior to any further incr~as~ in prices; however, he was reluctant i.o set a precedent. Commissioner ~erbst. i.ndiaatecl that the Planning Commission was not opposed to ttie use but was concerned about the m~thod of approving it. Assistant Development 5ervices Director Ronald Ttiamps~n noted for the Commis- sion that the readvertisement with a variance co~~ld be at the City's expense if thp Comrr~ission so desired; that tY~e Commission would be rec~mmending to the City Council k~oth the proper method of handling the requ~st and the traftiic circulation on Harbor Boulevardt and that c:oiisideration was qiven to gxanting access to the subject property f~r right turn3 only without lookin~ at the entire area would be recommending a precedent for the other parcels on the Boulevard with the san~e zoning. Mrs. Rose Vandivex, 719 North Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, appeared before the Commission and stated she had had no entrance to her property from the Boulevard for a long time and nothi.ng was being done about it; t'hat not being able to park in front of her horne was a handicap; that she had rear access on1X to her home, and i.f access was given t;o the subject property then she and others on Harbor Aoulevard should be given access also. Mrs. Richard T. Garabedian, the developer, appeared before the Commission and stated her husband's office was presently at 118 N~rth Harbor Boulevard and the City had taken his access requiring his patients to enter the prop- erty from the rear and he was losing patients because of this factor; that the proposal w~uld have one access point for two lots; that, in her opinion, an alley entrance was dangernus; that the doct.~r worked four days a week and had no intention of leasina thc 1000 square L-eet to anyone who was not strictly professional; that there was nat enough room £or anather medical office; and that the proposal was one of the nicer medi~al buildings and would be in the Redevelopment Area. :,::~ ~?aestioned the use of a variance procedure and the difference between the C-1 and C-0 Zon.es. Mr. Tl-lompsori Eurther noted for the Commission that once a large number of driveways wete approved, an arterial highway would not functiont that if the Planning Commission so desired, Staff could be directed to readvertise with a variance for tk~e subject property and proceed with an area development plan; that h~ realized that i~ would cost sixteen days in order to accomplisti t'~is procedure but it wou].d give the applicant greater flexibility with t.he prop~ erty and no•t be detrimental to Harbor Boulevard. ~ ~ • MIZ7UTE5, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 13, 1974 RECLASSIFICATION_N0. 73-74~54 (Continued) _~...._ - - 74-273 Th~ Planning Commi~aior~ entered into discuasion wf.th Mr. Smith concerning the proce~iur.ea being £ollowed And the reASOns theref.or. Commissi.oner K~.ng offere~ a moti.on, aeconded by Commise:oner Morley and MUTIQN CARRIFD, to reopen the public hearinq and aontinue con3iderati.on of Potii:ion for Reclassification Nc~. 73-74-54 to the meeting af May 29, 19741 ~+nc1 tha~ the Staff be and herE~by ic~ directed to pro~ess a variance petit~on Por the ~ub~oct property ~t the City's expense and also to procese an aroa development p'lan for the subject area. REc:.LASSIFICATION - PUBLTC HEAI2TNG. MARJOF2IE J. AN~ ALAN R. TALT, 615 South NO. 73-74-53 Fl,ower, 5uite 806, Los Angeles, Ca. 90017, Ownersp JOHN -"~ ~ A. HARVEY III, ].0~5 Narth Main, Suite 406, Santa Ana, Ca. 92701., Agentt requesting that property described aea A rectangu~.arly-shap~d parcel of land consisting of approximately a.75 acres located between Omega Avenue and Winston Road, having a~rontage of appr.oxi- mately 330 feet on the south side of Omega Avenue and a frontage of approxi- mately 330 feet on thc,3 north ~ic1e of Winston Road, havinq a maximum depth uf. approximately 62.8 feet, anc1 being lr~cated app.roximately 1320 feet east of the cent~rline oE State Co'l.l~ege Boulevar.d be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICUL- TU22AL, ZONE to the ~~!-1, LIGI~IT INDUSTRIAL, ZONF. No one ~+ppeared in oppasition to subject petition. Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated M~y 13, 1974, was not rsad at the public hearing, it is ref.erred to and madP a part o£ the n~inutes . Mr. Frank Morri.s, 4000 Wesley PZace~ Newport Beach, the petitloner, appeared beflore the Conunissi.An and indicated they had a conditiona~. sale and would take ownership of the subject proper.ty an the 15th of July, following termi- natiox~ of an a.gricultural lease; and he questioned when the zoning would be- come ~ffective. THE PUBI.,IC HEARING WAS CLOSEB. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised if the subject petitioti was approved, the City would zane the property to thc M-1 Zone as soon as certain of the conditions were satisfied. Commissioner King o£fered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Farano and MOTION CARRTED, that the Planning Commission zecommends to the City Council that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Ttapact Re~~rt pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Qt~ality Act. Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC74-103 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend tn the City Council. approval of Fetitiox- for Reclassificatian No. 73-74-53 subject to conditions. (See Resolutinn Book) On .rolY call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the .foLlowinq vote: AYES: COMMISSTOI3ERS: Comoton, Farano, Herbst, Johnson, King, Morley, Gauer NOES : COMMISSIONERS : None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None RECESS - Chairman Gauer dPClaxsd a recess at 7.30 p.m. RECONVENE - Chairman Gauer recor~vened the meeting at 7:35 p.m., -- Commissioner Jot~,.4on ;~eing abaent. ~ ~ • M:[NUTES, CITY PLANNTNG COMMISSION, May 13~ 1974 74~27~1 AM~NDMF~IVT TO TITLE 18, - INITIATED BY TIiE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN~ CUMMTSSION, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE 2U4 Etzat Lincoln Avenue, Anahoim, Ca. ~2805t to '- " cons.ide.r ac3ding Chapter ~.El.'tl t~ tha Anaheim Municipal. Code entitlecl "Rt~-360U Rooide~ltial, Multiple-Family Zone". Associato P1annPr IIill Yotiing presented the Staff Rep~r~ to ~ho Planninq Commi~sion clatad May 13, 1974, and sa~.d ~ta.ff Repart is referred to ae if aet £urth in fu7.1 in the m~.nutes. Mr. Davicl Reed, 914 N~rth Fairview Str~et, Anaheim, appcared bQfore the Commission concerning the proposFd Code amendinent and questioned the usage of the word "condominium". Ha requestad the Planning Commission to de~lay considar.ation of the CodQ amendment unti]. the City Cc~uncil raheard R9C1A98~- ficatiun No. 73-74-36 whirh was scheduled for May i•1, 1974. THE PUaLIC HE,ARING WAS CI,OSED. Planninq Supervi~or pon McDaniel ~~oted for the Commission that Staff had prepr~red the proposed Code amendment i.n accordance witY~ thoae di.scussions held with the Planning Commi.ssion and City Council on the subject matter; that Staff would be happy to work directly with Mr. RQed, as chay Y~ad for other members of the communii:~ , i:~ work out the fi.ne arid legal details, as Staff would certainly war-t the document to be leg~l~ that Staf~ had also worked alosely with the rity Attoxney's Office in preparation of the ~roposed Code ~unendment; that if the amend.*nent did not mf.et the concerns of Mr. R~ed, he would have the apportunity to be heard at tr.e City Council heari.ng on the matter= that Staff would not want a two-we~:k del.ay on the basis or l.egal termiz~ology and, having worked on tlie proposal, hP was nat as confident as Mr. Rsed that a change in the proposal would be necesgary. Upon inquiry of Chairman Gauer concerning chan~es which Nr. Reed f.elt were necessary, Mr. keed presented his c~py of the ~roposE•1 Cc,de amendment to the Chairman on which tlze suggest4d chanct~s tiad been mark~c3. Commissioner Herbst noted that if the Planning Commj.ssi~~n appxoved the pro- posal at this meeting, following ~their meeting on N,ay 14, 1974, the Ci•ty Council could send it back immediately to the Planning ~ommission if neces- sary; and that the pr~posed zone was an emergency tool. Commissioner Farano noted that the City was obligatec~ to operake under the dictates of the City Attorney's Office as far as interpretation and the legal effects of the proposa]. Mr. Lowry noted that he had met with Mr. Reed and therP were certain basic philosophical differ.~nce~ as to Mr. Reed's appr.oach to the area of zoning and there was some di.sagreement; that the pr.oposed ordinance had bFen approved in its basic form in the City of Sar_ta Monica and h~u the blessings of the Appellate Courts of the State of C~~.:.fornia and it should stand any test, Commissioner Farano indicated he woutd like to see thE zone •recalculated to l0 rather i:han 12 ~inits per ac~e, or ~.n RM-4000 Zone. The Planning Commission entered into discussion regarding low-income housing in the City during which Commissior~er Herbst noted that the subject zoning was the ~~ly tool left in Anaheian fur this puz•pose and tihat if some effort was not ulsplayed, the U. S. Governmc,~t cauld preempt the City in that regard. Assistant Devel~pment Services Director Ronald Thompson noted for the Commis- sion tha*_ it was questic?nable if the City had to provide ownersY~~ ~-~ypz lcca- cost housing; that the City had fulfilled the responsa.bility to provide a broad range of dwelli.ng units but did not necessarily have the responsibility to provide low-cost housi.ng. Commissioner Herbst noted for the Con~mission that i:he RM-3600 Z~ne was mor.e appzopriate for the City of Anaheim than RM-~Q00 since it was mainly a working man's town. ~ ~ M:[NUTrS~ CZTX PLANNING C'.OMN4ISSIAN, May J 3, 1974 7A-275 AMENDMF.NT TO 'I'ITLE ].8, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE (Continued) C~mmissioner Herbat offerAd Reaolutian No. PC'~:-104 and move~ .Eor ita passuge arid ador~+~ion to rec~mmerid to khe City Council the adoption or Amtinament to the Ariaheim Municipal Co~ie, Tit.le 18, 7oni.ng, Chapter 18.31 "ItM-3G00 Residential, Multipl.e-Family, Zone", as set Eorth in Fxhiblt "A" and madc~ a part of this rosolution of approval. (See Resolution Hook) On roll call, the fc~regoing rasalution was pagaed by thQ following vote: AYFS : COMMISSZONERS : Comoton, lierbst, Kinq, Gauer NOES: COMMISSIQNERS: Farano, Morl3y ABSEN~.C: COMMTSSIONERS x Jotinson Commissioner. Farano noted that his "no" vote was directed to the density and nok to the ordinance i.tselft and Commissioner Morley concurred in that statement. EIR NEGATIVE D~'CLARATTON - Street ~Jidening of unimproved secti.ons ~f Hall REQUEST __ Road between West S~reet and Euclic~ Street. It-.~.vas nated that the subject project w~s a City of Anahcim project and the work would ccnsir~t of the widening to ultimate of Ball Road from West Street to Eucl.id StreEt with landacaped median islands also installed as part of the nroject. Commissioner Ki.ng offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marl.ey and MO'TION CAkRIED (Commiss~ionet Johnson being absent) that the P1anr~ing Commission recommends to the Gity Councfl that the subject project be exempt from thP requirement to prepare an ~nvironmental Impact Rei~ort pursuan~ to the pro- visions of the California Envirc-nmental Quality Act. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION -• Street ~ridening of unimproved sections of Sunkist REQUEST _ Street between Lincoln Avent~e and South Street. Zt was noted that t.he subject pxoject was a City of Anaheim pr.oject ~nd the w~~rk would consist of the widening to ultimate of the uni.mproved portion of Sur.~'.cist Street within the proj~ct limits. Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commi~sioner Mc~rley and MOTIO~.~ CARRIED (Commissioner Johnson being absent) that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the subject project be exempt fxom the requirement to prepare an EnvironmentaZ Impact Report pursuant to the pro- vlsions of the California Environmenta:. Quali.ty Act. ENVZRONMENTAL TNiPACT - For the propased consi:.ruction of L~ Pa1ma Avenue frAm Weir Canyon l2oad to 2965 feet east of Imperial Hiqhway. It was noted that the subjeci: ~roject was a City of Anaheim project and the work consisted of the extensi.on of La Palma Avenue .from its present terminus 2965 feet east of Imperial I-iighway to Weir Canyon Road, a distance of appr.oxi- mately 1.99 miles. Commissioner King offered a motiori, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Johnson bei.ng absent) that the Fnvironmental Impact Repoxt for the proposPd extension of La Palma Avenue having been considered this date by the City Planning Commissian and written eviden~e having been presented to supplement said draft EIR, the Planninq Commisston believes tliat said draft EIR does conform to the City and State guidelines and the State of California Envir.anmental Quality Act and, based upon such informution, does hereby recommend to the Gity Cour.cil that they certify said ~IR is in com- pllance with said Environmental Quality Ac,:. ~ ~ MINUT~S~ CITX PLANNING COMM7.SSInN, May 13, 1~74 ~4'"2~6 REPOR'I'5 ANA - ITEM NO. 1 R~CpMML'n ~ ATIONS Z RIAL~~lOODS RECItEATIONAL TRAZL - Conformance with City of Anaheim G~neral P.lan 7t WAB not~d that the Orange County Flood Control Diatrict proposad to cun- atzuct the Tmperial Waod~ Reci~et~~ional Trail along the ~anta Ana Ri.ver fram Tustin Avenue to Imperial Highway and the Governm~nt Code o~ thc~ State af CaliEornim, Sec:tion 65Q0'' ~r~vi:3ec~ in part ttiat a local r~genay such as thc~ F~ood Con~rol Disi:rirt shr~ll ~ot acquire raal proparty nor disp~~e ~f any real p.roperty, nor. cons~ruct a public building or ~tructur.a in any aounty or c;ity, until the locatton, purpose ancl extent of i;he activity hae be:en raported upon as to contormity wit11 L•hc adopted General Flan applicable thezeto. Commissioner KinR offered Resolution No. 1?C7A-].05 arid moved for its passage and adopti~n to find and determfne that the proposed construction af Imperial W~ads Recreational Trail. is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. (See Resolution BQOk) On roll cal.l, the foregoi.ng resolut.ion was passed by the following vot~: 7#YLS: COMMISSIONERS: Compton, Farano, Herbst, King, Morley, Gauer NOES : COMMISSIONEI2S : None ABSENT: CUMMISSTONERS: Johnson ITEM ~Vb . 2 REQUEST FOR EIR NEGATIVE DECI~ARATION FOR GRADING P~RMIT FOR ZNDUS'rRIAL COMPLEX AT 5571-•~625 EAST LA PALMA AVENUE. Assistant Zoning Supexvisor Phillip Schwartze read the Staff Report to the Planz~ing Cotranissa.on dated May 13, 1974, and said Staff Repart is referred to as i~ set PortY- in full in the minutes. It was noted that the i.ssuance of a grading ~+ermit under circumstances whe=e the site was 1eve1 wi~th na drain- age problem would usually be categorically exempt from the requiremenL- to Ei1e an EIR; however, this project was located within the Scenic Corridor and guidelines did not allow cai;egorical exemption i.n a scenic area. Commissioner Herbst offerec~ a motion, seconded by Commiss~.or.er Morley and MOTION CARRIb;D, that the Planning Commission recommenc~s to the City Council that the sub~~ct project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Envi.ron~nental Impact Report pursuant to the provision~ of the California Environn-ental Quali.tx Act. AAJOURIVNiENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Comni.ssioner Morley and MOTION CARRIED (Cornmissioner Johnson being absent)~ to adjourn the meeting to the joint City Council/Pl~~nninq Cominission meetiiig on May 15, 1974, at 7:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m, Res ectfully submitted, ~-~v~' Patricia B. Scanlan, Se~retary Anaheim City Planning Commi.ssion PAS:hm