The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1974/06/10Q R C 0 MIGROFIIMING SERVICE, IPiC. ,, . ~ ., ,. ., ~ ~ Cit,y Nal.l Anahe:tm~ California June IO, 1974 RCGULAR MGE'PING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY Pt.ANNII:~' GOh'tISSION REGUI.AR - A regular me~t.ing of thc~ Anaheim City P] ~g Commioeion was c.alled MEL~TING to arder by Chaf.rman GnuQr at 2:00 p.m. on June 10~ 1.97k it~ t~~e Council f;hamber~ a quorum being present. P!lEtEESL~N'i - CHAIRMAN : Gnuer - t;Ol~IlytISSIUNI Compton, Harbst, King. Mor1e~ ABSF.NT - COI~4IIS~ IONEkS: Fnrano~ .Iohneon AL~O L`!tF.SF.NT - A~aiatant D~ lopment Serviaes D irectur: RunAld Thompaon Deputy City Attorncy: Frank I,owry Otfice Engineer: Jay Titus Chief Iluilding Inapector: Dan Van Aorp~ Planning Supervieor: Don McDani,1 7.oning Supervieor: Charlee Roberta Aaeist~nt Zoning Superv ur: Aimika Sxntal~hti Associat~ Plai~ner: PhilZip Schwartze Planning Commisai.un Secretary: Pntricis Scanlan PLEDGG OF - Cocmntesioner King led in the Pledge oL A1legiance to the Flag oF t}ie ALLEG.TANCE United Statea of America. CONDITIONA:. USE - CONTINUFD PUBLIC H~AKiN(~. FORBST I.AWN CEMETERY ASSOCIATT.ON, I'. 0. PERMIT N0. LG68 8ox J?51, GZenda].e, Ca. 91209, Oum~•~~; JAMGS A. ARNERICH AND H.4ROLD ~ ~ MURP.ISON, P. U. [iox 115J., ~l~~n~l,.tile, ~'~~. 91209, Agents; requeeting permi~ssion ko CONVGRT AN EXISTING M~DICAL-DENTAL OFFICG COMPLEX INTO A P1.ANNEU UNIT CUhI~ILRCIAL DEVELOPMENT, WAIVIN~ R~QLIIREMENT 'P1~U1T LOTS MUST ABUT A PUALIC STRIsET ANll MINIMUM REQllIR~D PAFc1C]:NC an property deacribed r~s: A rectangularly- ;•haped parcel of l~nd conaiating of appY^ximately 6 acrea having a frontage of approxi- mately 762 feet on the north aide of Romneya Dri.ve~ liaving a maxim~sm depth of approxi.- matel.y 334 feet and being locate:d approximately 228 feet weat of the centerline of Euc11d Street. Property presently ctassified C-1, GENEItAL COr4[ERCIAI., ZONF.. Sub~ect petition was cotitinued from the meeti+.~g of r.:.y 13, 1974~ because o~ utiresolved problems. N~ ane appearad in opposition to 5ubject petition. Although thP Staff Report to the Pl nninII Commias•lon daCed June 10, 1974, waa not read at the public hearing, it ia re~'erred to and made a part of the minute~. Mr. James Ariiertch, 1112 South Glcndale Avenue, Glend~le, California, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commiasion and statPd that at the meet(~~g of May 13, 19'14. ~he PlaniiinR Commis~lon sugg~ated that the proposal nhould be designed a~ n condn- miniua~ proJect; thut the aFpreqch they were uaing was for condominiwn deve'lopment under wtiir.h ~he doctorg who were tha tenanta on the property would pt~r.chase the p~r~icular suite that they were rentiag and a comanan area would be conveyed t~ them; that the uasess- ments for mai.ntenance of the com~aon areas would be to prouide fund~+ tor said mnintenance; that regarding candition ,f approval Na. L, as set forth in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission, he tated that only 30 feet would be ~vailable for dedicatinn from the centPrline of Medical Center Urive~ ~ind h~ requested the candition be modified to require 30 feet rattier th.~ 32 feet of dEdication; thut regarding CoudiCi.o~, No. 4, as r~et focth in the StafF Report, lie requested modifir_ation to require the separate eLectrical ~nd water meters to be ].ocated in the common areaa or on each tndi~~idual parcel and aerve that parcel only; that at th2 presenl• time there were four medical auitea ir. one building which were four separate parcels, and if Che condition was m~dified as s~ggest~d, they would not have to move any of the metere. 2on~ng Supervisor Char.lea Roberta noted for the Comu-isaion that Mr. Arneri.ch had contacted Staf.f and asked if there would be a prublem modifying r.he c~ndition regarding the location of the electiical and water mete~s, and the t.ro City o.fficea did not think there would be 74-26~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, Ct'PY PLMININC COt~ITSSION~ June 10, 1974 COND'ITIONAL USI~P~FtMZT Nq. 1468 (Continued) 74-261 u parl•icular pro5l.am nnJ thaC ttie condiCion co~i1J reaJ~ "That sepnrptr. clar_tric~l and wntar metars en:i.ll be ;.ocatc~d in kha com~aon areae or on cach lndividual pnrcel and aerva thaC par~•el oiily~ ae t~pproved hy Che Ut111tiee Diracto~." 'CR~ PUALLC HF.AtcLNC WAS CLOSFll. In reply to queatiuning by Commiseloner Ki.ng~ Mr, Kober.t- euggeetod tt~at Condttion No~ 2 as set fortli i.n ttie Stt~ff Rdport be expan~ •d upun to ren ~. "1'het the owner~ ~) o~ sub~ect property ahall condltl.onully dedicato to tha City of An .ieim a etrip of ].ailt 32 ~eet in width, or BucL• other wLdCh d~~~ermined to be satiefnctor ~ by tl•ir_ Clty ~'•ngineer, from t.he cen~erlina of the atrect fro~ Che north proper~ line along MAdical Centor Jriv~• (private etreet) for etrest widening urposes, conditiun~d upon the nFed for a public strect as detarmined by the City o£ An ~ieim." Mr. P.ubert~ noted that the ~uggeeted woxdtng woul.d give Elexibility to the Cit}• t:ngineer. l:n reply ko queationing by ~.hairman Gauex, Mr. Arnerich ~Cat~d the C.Ct~Ra would t,e eub- arltted to the City Attorney's Ofti.ce for approval; and Mr. Robexte advised that~ if approved~ a condition ahould be ad~led "That covenante~ conditions and reAtrictions ehall be aubmitked to nnd npproved by the City Attornay'o Office prior <<~ City Council approvnl of Che parcel map; nnd~ fur.ther~ that the epproved covenanta, ~ond!tions and reatrictione shall be recorded conc.urrently wi~i~ the pnrcal map, as atipulated to by tha pctitiar-er" and "Th~t prior tn approval of the psrcel mF-p, thc~ petitioner ehall submit to the Citv Attorney for approval. or denial a complete syaopsie of the pro~oaed f~m~~ticning of the oper~.ting corporat.ion, lncluding buC not 1lmited to the uticles of ~~,rporation, bylawa, praposed methada of manAgement, bonding Co i~ ure mainc_.nanr_e of cummon pxoperty snd buildinge, and auch other informetion as the City Attorney may desire tu protect Che Clty, ita citizana, und the purchasera of the project." In reply to queationing by Cnmmisainner Morley, Mr. Arnerich stipulated Chat he was satisfied with ttie suggeskian modificationa and udditions to the conditions of approval. Commiasioncr Morley offered a motion, aeconded by Commiasianer King and MOTION CARTtIED (Commiasioners Farano and Johneon beinE, abse~t), Chst the ~lanning Cnmmission recammends Co the City Council that th~ suhjec~ pro,ject be exempt frc>~n r.-~e requirement to pr.epare an Gm~ironmantal Impart Report pura~ant to the provi.ei.one of tiie .:zlifornia Environmentul Quality ~.ct. Comnisafoner Morley offered Resolution No. PC74-116 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Peti.tion for Caiiditional Use Permit P;u. 1468 sub~ect to ttie foregoing findinga and etipulations by the p~titioner, and aubject to ~:onditions. (See Keaolution Dooic) On roll call, the for.egoi.iig resolution was pass~d by the following vote: AYES: COr41ISSI0NERS: COMT'TOI~, HERBST, :CING, MORLEY, GAUER NOES: COMMISSIUNERS: NOA.. ABSENT: COhII~IISSIONE: ~: FAItANO, JOHNSON FNVIRONMENTAL ..NiPACT - CONTINUED PUB'LIC HEARING. W0~ ~DINE ~Oit?URATION, fi~83 Wilshi~re REPORT N0. 124 Aou:levard, Suite 700, Beverly Hills, Ca. Q07.11, (hmer. Property deecxibed as: An irregulsrly-shaped parcel uf land V4RIANCE N0. 2601 conaisting of apprnximately 25.8 acres havii-g a frontage of ap;roxim:~eely 2100 feet an the north aide of Serrano Avenue, TENTATIVE MAP OF having a~~ximum depth of approximately 670 feet, and being TItACT N0. 7918 located approximately 1760 feet east of the centerline of Not~l Ranch Road. Property presently classif~ed R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 'LQNL. Subject petition was cunt-inued from the me~ting of May 13, 1974, at the requesl- of the petikioner. 'I~o peraona indicated thQir presence in opposi•_ion to s+ib~ect petition. Aaeociate Planner Phillip Schwartze t~.oted f~r ~i~e Commiaei~n that the petltioner was requeating a four-we^k contitiuance in order to rillow tia.e for submittal of a rpvised Environmental Im}.+~L Report and review by the ETR Revie~~ CommiCtee. CummiasionNr King offered a morion, aecondec: by Commisaiot~er Herbs*. and MOTION CARRIEA (Commiseione:s Farano and Johnaon being ~bsent), to further conti.nue the public hearing and consideration of Environmental Impact lteport N~~. 124, Varianr_e No. 2601 and Tenta- tive Map o£ Zract No. 7918 t~ the meeting of July ~, 1974~ ag requested F,~ the petitioner. ~ ~ M].NLiTESo CI'1'Y PLANNINC COhQ1ISSI0N, June 1Q~ 1974 74-•262 ENVIRONMENTAI. IMYACT - PUBL~, HEARINC. ANNiEIM NILLS~ iNC./TEXACO VF.NTURES~ iNC:.~ RI:PORT N0. 127 3BU Maheim Hille Roed~ Attn: Jemes Rari~ic, Anaheim, Ca. ~ 92806, Owner. Property der+c:rlbed us: An Lrxegutarly-er~ape~.1 VARIANCI: N0. 2610 pnrc~l of land coneietltig of appruximaccly 24 ncres having frontagee uf approximatc~ly 444 feet on Che north eide of Canyon T~NTA'CIVB MAP OF Rim Roud and 937 fnet on the eauth ~~"n of Canyon Rim Road~ 'ffWCT NO~. 84a5 hsving a<<:^.~imum ~' •pth ~~f ~pproxin ' 889 feat and being AND 8k56 located npproxim~~~~ly 1'100 foet enr,t of Che conter.lin~ of ' Nohl Runch RoAd. "r„pc~rcy preeently cluasifted R-A~ ACRICULTU~'.AI., ZONE. R~QUFSTED VA~' LANC~: WAIVBR OC (A) LO'l' ~vOT REAItING UN AN AR'PERIAI. HT.CHWAY, (A) MINIMUM REAR YARU S~TAACK~ (C) MINIMUM LOT AREA~ (U) M'iN~MUM LOT WIDTH, (ti) MI.NIMUM I,OT WIDTN ON A CUL-UT:-5AC. (r) MAXIMIIM FENCE HF.IGHT i^+ SETBACK AREA, AND (G) LOT }~RQNTAGE ~N UED'LCATED SxR~ET, TO ESTAB'LI3H ~ 73-I,OT, R-1 7.ONED SUBDIVISION IN '1'WO TRACTS. 'L'~NTATIVE TF~GT EtP.QUESTS: I.NGT'1EER: WILLDAN ASSOCTATES, 125 South Claudina Street, Anaheim, Cn. 928U5. 5ub~ect proo~~t:ty i.A propoaed f.or subdiviaion as followa: Tract No. 8455 - 15.6 acros - 39 !t-1 zoned 1ot~- Tr~ct No. 8456 - 1.3.1 acres - 34 R-,1 zoned lote 'Irao peraona indic~ted their presenc~ in opposition tn aubject petiCions. Aasiatant Zoning Supervieor Annika Santal.ahti read the SCuff Report to the Planning Commisaion dated J~ine 10, 197A, and satd SCaff Report ia ref•erred to as if set forth +.n full in the minuCea. Mr. John Mi.llick, representi•~~ the property owner, appe~red before the Comaaission and atated they were :eq~~eating down-~~ning frora t'~e unita proposed under the Zoning Glement or General. 1'lan Amendment No. 123-A, from a potentfal. 2a0 units to 73 units; and that the ;r~oosed density was 2.5 unita per ar.re. ~4r. James Rogera, repr.esenting Westfield Dev~lopment Company, the deyeloper, appeared before the Commiasion and atatPd the proposed pro~ect would be an exr.ension of thetr existing tract to the easC; that they were alsu the developers f.or the ~~t~~rCment property to the west. of t}ie prupoaed devel.opment; that the varian~es being ~requested were necessary ia order tn develop the sub~ect prop~rty as an extenaion of the development to the east ar.d all of said variances were requested and granted for Tract No. 8215. He pointed out t`~at there was considerable distance between the dwelling units and a tremendous amount of open ep~~ce. Mre. Mary Dint~dorf, 131 La Paz Street, Maheim~ Praeident uf the Santa ~1na Canyon Home- ownera Improvement Asaociation, appeared before the Commission anc; s:~ted the developer should be r~yuired to meet all of r.he deve?opment standards even t~us~. thEre was con- siderable distance between the home~; that there were too many drlveiaays coming into the cul-de-sac which was bad; that wany buyere wanted cul-de-sac lots and fo• that reuson it was to the advantage of Che developer to have se many homes ot- a cul-de-:ac as poesible, but for parking automobiles it was not ao good; that some of the requestc3 variar.ces Here too much but if the developer hai the extra land beCween the homeo they s;ould use some of that land to reduce the number of variances, In rebuttgl, Mr. Rogere statEd Mra. Dinndorf's xE•action w~s natural since :~vone who had not completely analyzed what had been dune would object; that hie feeling was ~.`At the variance^ were more th~n ~uatif•led duE ~o t.he ahape of ti~e property involved, etc.; that all of the homes on the cul-de-sacs were pie-shaped ~.~d would have a tXemendous view; that the bu~lding line of all the lots was in excess of 60 feet wi9e; that the cul-de-eac loea yuickly widened at the redr; that regat.fing pa=king 1.n the cul-de-sa~c~, lhE driveways were extended or extra long an~. many of tho~~ howzs had tht•ee-ca.r garages; and C~~aC ttiere was room for zt least aix .:ft--atreet ~arking sPacas £~Y each oi the homea on ihe cul-de-sac, in most ~ases. Mrs. Jean Moxr•ls, 40U Torrey Piner~ Circl~, Anahc:~n, appeared befora the Commisaion in oppusition to sub,jec* petition and stated she acrongly diyRpproved Ai~~:c the 1onP drive- ways and three-c~.: garagea were incrediblc: aoluttoas, in her opina~n, to :he parking situation; that in her neighborhood thcre wa~: a aimilar s'_tuatioc~, and she te:med 1t "musical cars" when a car war~te. out. THE PUDL~C IiEARING WAS CLOS~r ~ ~ MINU'I'CS, CITY PI.ANNINC COMMISSION, .Iune lU, 1974 74-263 ENVI.RONMLNTAL IMPACT RI;1'ORT N0. .129, VARIANGE N0. 2610, AND TCNI'A'fIVE MAl' OF TIUICP NOS. 8455 AND 8b56 Contim~od . _ .________~~.._._ - - Commie~eicncar Morl.e*y lnquired if the clevel.opet- c+llmin, ted a couple of tlie lora ~ wou .d that aolve tho probleme being diecuae~d, and Mr, R~q~re f-tt~ted l.ii that caee some uf the l.ots wuuld be an ncre in r~ize~ ~aaking an ~mwie'lciy eltuai ton; tl~at he did not ~•~msider the probl.em to be aignificnnt; thnt wi~h thrue-cnr garagea tliero wnk ample room to move care in r~nd out ~ nnJ I:herc waN epc~~•c for properl,y et~~ring and parkin~; carA on the pruperty. Chairman Gnuer ~uedtion~l the one lor ith a 15-fr~ot widtt- on a aul-de-sac, and Mr. Rogera statecl tlint lot hi-cl n 170-degree view tn Che rear :~nd wne probably lOQ [Qet in boCl~ directione from tlie closest neighbora~ wl~ich w:iq u auperb eatting for a home. In reply l•o questioning by Commiseioner lierbst regarding whut would hsppen if Aomeone on the cul-de-Aec I~nd a party, Mr. Rogers etULed thnt the dri.vawaye would Cake care of part ~f the parking needs and some of the care ,:~+t~ld probably liuve to par.k down the atreet in froc~C of eameonN else's home, Commise~.oner Nerbsk noted that. with Che cul-de-eacs completel~~ cut up with drivewayP, there waa nu place on the aCreet in frunt of the cul-de-an~ ce to purk; snd Mr. Rogers cei.terated that Chey l~ad made up for the variancea by huv. , diotunce between the home~. In reply to questioning by L'ommisaioner Herbst, Mr, Ro~ a stated the percentage of under- sized lote ir~ width was prohably 75X of the developmer~ ; that the ma,jority of the lota wer~ uuder '10 feet wide but there were other thinge ~:-t were '~u~r. as importanC, such as the diatance be.tween th~ homes and the reasons for ~e walvere. In reply ta queati.oning by Commissioner King, Mr. ~togera staCed the lenar number of cara that could be parked on the lots, including the _se of the garages, was four on the cui- -sacs and othera would be froin five to eight cars. Chairman Gauer noted. £ur the Commiseion that he did not believe cl,e guest parking problem cauld ever be solved unleas there was a parking lot. Commiaeioner Compton uoted for the Cownisslon that it appeared that putCing seven homes on the cui-de-sac was crowding ~~i too many homes. Mr. Rogere atated that given another set of circumstancea~ the parlcing situatlon might be a problem but not with the proposed homes and plan for the sub~ect development. CaA.miesioner Nerbet noCed for the petieioner that he had no ob~ection to the flag lots as long as they did n~t cr.owd anyone and, in hi.s opiniotc, the propuaed plan crowded the property, however, with some minor changPs iC could be corrected, i.e., reducing the number of luts; that ther.e was no hardehip demonstrated; that stretching out the lets would help correct the cul-de-s:ic situati.on; that it appeared the developer wus trying to develop an R-], tract but did not want to uae R-1 standarda; that the proposaJ. would set a precedent; that larger lots in the hill and canyan area would not hurt; and the propoeed loka were too narruw. Mr. Millick ~hen requestied a two-week continuance in order to review the praposal in line with the remarks made by the ~''Lar.ni:-g Commi~saion at this meeting. Co,nmissio~~er. King offered a aor:un, sec~nded by Commi~sioner Herbst and h10TI01G CARRIED (Commisstaners Farano end Johnson. being abaent), to reopen the public hearing and continue consideration of Environmental ImpacC ite~ort No. 129, VarlAnce No. 2610, and Tentative Maps ~~r 1'ract Nos. 8455 and 8456 to the meeting of Jun~ 24, 1974, as r.eq~ested by the p~l•itioner. Zoning Supervieor Charle~ Itoberta noted for the petiCi~ner that it would be necessary f~c any revisec; plana to be suLmitted to C~t.y Staff by Juue 14, 1974, to a11ow time for adequate Staff analysis and prepar:xtion cf the StafC Repor.t to the Planning Cummisaion. ~ • MT.NUTL~S, c:l'1'Y :'i..ANNrNC COI~tISSION~ Jun~: lU, 1974 74-?6G liNVIRONt4ENTAL I'.~4'ACT - CON'CLNUGD YUBLTC HEARING. HOWARll l~UIN.ONG ANA .IUL MAAG, 2(~(N~b RLYORT N0. 126 SunCa Ana Canyon R~ad, Anabeim. Ca. 92806~ Owne~p; SCHMI.ll ~~ ~~ DFV1i1.OPMBNT, INC. , 1681 Lan~~ ey Avenue, I~'vi.ne, Co. 92705, AgPnt. RECLASSICICATiON ('ropc~rty d~ecribed as: A rec.CAiigularly-ehaped pnrcel oP I+~~~.1 N0. 73-74-58 c:onel.eting af :~~+nroximate.ly 17.4 acres locatecl northerly of y-' Nuhl ltanch Road und south of chr ~cutheY•ly termin' of Solc~mon ~lARIANCE N0. 260:3 -)rivo and Leandro .~tr~et, having +- mnximum widCh of` uppY~oximnkely ~ 1289 fect and a maximum d~ ~~tl~ uf approximate.ly 590 facr, and T~N'IATIV6 M/"' OF being loccttad approximei~ely 1050 feet. west. of rhe centerline of TRACT N0. SG74~ Anaheim Hille Road. Prape~~y presenciy claeyifiod R-A, ItEVISIUN N0. 1 AGRICULTURAL. 7.ONG. RI:QUF.STED CLASSIFICATION: Ft-1, ONE-FAMILY Rt;SI1)ENTTAL~ ZONE~ RCQUESTED VAKIANCE: WAIVF.R OF (A) MINIMUM SID1~; YR1tD SETHACK 0~ A RI:VBRSED CORNGR LO'f ~ (I3) MINTMUM LOT WID'TH ON A CUL-AE-SA~', AND (C) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH. TENTATIVB TRACT RFQUES'f: ENGLt~EER: MILLF.'f, KT.NG 6 AS50CIATBS~ INC., 1335 West Valencia Drive, Fullertun, Ca. 92633. Sub~ect property ia propaeed f.or. au'bdi~leion in[o 57 R-1 zone~i tote. SuU,ject petitiona were continued from the meeting of May ~9, 197G for revised plnns. Four peraons indicated their presence in opposition to sub~ecC petitl~ne and £orthwitti waived the f+~ll reading of the Staff Report. Although the StaEf Report to the PZanning CommiRaiun dEted June 10, 1974 wae not xead at the public hearing, it is referred Co and madp n part of the minutea. Mr. Lewis R. Schmid, the petitiuner, appeared before the Commiesion and eta~ed the plane had beEn reviaed eliminating the need for waiyer of the minimum lot width on a cul-de-aac and mir~imum width on interior loto. Mrs. Mary Uinndorf, Presldent of the Santa Ana Cssnyon tiomeownera Improvement A680C~.AC~GT1~ appeared before the Coauaiesion in oppoaition to subject petitiona and ~tated ahe was concerned about tl~e rraffic build-up in t:he ~ubject arex; that she was eapeci.~lly con- cerned about the traFfic on Nohl Ranch Road with Che contiizued development and th~ schools, since the other streete in the area woul.d not be completed for some time to come. The other~ preacnt in opp~eition indicated they wer.e opposed prior to the revised plans. There being no rebuCtal, THF PUSLTC HEARI;IG WAS CLOSED. Commlasion~r Compton inquired wl~y ttie developer thought it wae tiecessary to bring the 6-foot wall to [he side property line rathex than providing the aetback, and Mr. Schmid stated the buyers would ask for the variance so tt~ey r_ould use the side yard. Upon further inquiry~ Mr.. Schmid etated the wall would not obstruct the view of the houae in any way. Commisaioner King i.nquired if Mre. Dinndorf had any auggnstions for s~.o~_ng down the traffic in the area and she replied that in the hill area the developers had been allowed to install nurrow etrc:ets h~td with parking ~~n Che atreets, r.hey should on3.y be used for. one•way traffic; thr~t it would talce time to get all of the streets in but she would_l~ke to aee more atreetd :~nd the dralning c~nditions taken care of before constructfon o projecta; that it had appeared that iti mar~ cases in thc: past the developwenta were con- structed and the problema were aolved aYter.:~?rds; that with all thc~ develo?ment in th2 area there w:~e a~roblem with relationahip to the ficod plain; and thai !3oh1 Ranch Road, in some in~~an~es, ahould be made almost a f:eeway. Nr. Glen Salebury, H111crest Drive, Anaheim, appeared before the c:ommission and inquired what protection a property owner would have to keEp hia view frur~, being destr.oyed by new deve~opment such ae the one be•ing proposed. He atr-ted the.re were a number of view lota which may loau their vi.ew when the subject development was conatructed, e»pecial2y if fences were included. Deputy City Attorney Frnnk Lowry sta~ed he was not aware of ar.y ordinance that would ~~rotect the h~+aeownera mentioned by Mr. S~elebury; however, the CCbRa gave such protection in some casee; and that ch~ or.iy ~rdinance related to the situction limited conetrucCion to two-story or 35 Feet !n a residenCial area. • C~ MiNU'1GS, ~'~'('Y PI.ANH:[NG COMMISST.UN, ,Juna 10, 1974 i4-265 ENVIRONMENTAI.. IMPAC'f REPURT N0. 126, RECI~A.SSIFI~ATION ti~. 73-7G-5d~ VAEtIANCE N0. 2603~ ANU TENTATIVF. MAP OF TRACT NU~ 8679. 1' VISION N0. 1 r(~onC:lnued _.. _ __.. __._._~._ Chairman Cuuer yuggcc~~ n~l th,.t Mr. Salebury work witt, the Jeve lop~• ~~md also ,.ulk Lurth~~r with Lhe Clty Attorney's Ofll~•e conc~rning h19 question. Mre. Joanne LRwin~ 21563 Mohlor Uriv~, Annheim, appaarec~ bRfura the (:~~~~unieaion And eCr~t ~~~~ the lut sho hn~ ~:aneidered buying in the edjacent tracC would hnv~ boQn cut off~ us far ao the view~ by thQ propoaed d~velopment; ancY thaC the buyere ehould beware becaL~se ti~e buildere did noC lnform them uf future impact3 on the property. ?.oning `' •nervieor Cl~axlee Roberta euggeoted [hat an additional c.onJi.tion of approval be adde.l co the reclaeeificetion and tract~ "Tliat th~ owner(s) af s~ib~ect property ehall cor~ditionally dedicate ea Che City of A.naheiin a strip of land ae roquir~d by the £uture exten~ion of a S4-toot wide KtxeQt L•rom the intersection o[ L~andro Street and "A" Street t~ thc~ soutn tract boundnry, including necessary standard p''~~~~erty line rsdii; and sai.d conditionel dedicatian ahall b~ conditianed upon khe need for a street as determined by tha City of Annheim." Coimniaeione~ Compton offernd a motfon, aecondr.d by Commissioner Kin~y attd MJTION CARRiE7 (Cort~miasioners Farano and 3ohncon being abaent), that Environment.al Iropact EteporC No. I''F~, having been coneidered this date by the Citv Ylanning Cormnis~ion and evidence boCh wri~ten nnd orxl havir.g beer presenr.ed to supp].~~mer.t Aaid draft EIR No. 126~ the Planrsing Cammla- eion bPli.eves that eaid draft rIR No. 1'l6 daeA conform to the Clty and SCflte ~ui~alines and khe Stnte of California Gnviromental Quality Ar_t and, haeed upon such in~ormation, does hereb~~ recommend to Che City Council that Chey certifv gaid GIR No. 126 1A in com- pliance wlth eaid rnvi.ronmen~al Qunlity Act. Cammissioner Comptou off.cred Resoluti.c>n ~10. PC74-117 and moved foz its passAge ~nd adop- ti~n to recommend to the City Council epproval of Petitlon for lteclassificatior. No. 73-74-58 aubject ko the furegoing condition concer.r.ing the possible fut>>re k~ctension of 1,eandro Street und aub~ect to conditions. (5ee Reaolution Book) On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vot~~: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: COIvQ'TON, HERBST, KINC MORLEY, GAUER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONF. ABSEt'T: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO~ JOHNSON Co~issionex Compton offered Reso3.ution N0. PC74-118 and moved for its paesage and ado~- tion to grant Yetition for Variance No. 2603 in part, grant'ng waiver of the minimum aide yard setback on a reversed corner Xot on the basis that the ~.etitioner demonstrated that u hardship wauld be created if said waiver was not granted; tl~at the petitioner withdrew requeat for waiver of minimum lot wid~i: on a cul-de-sac and miuimum iot width on ~_nterior lots; and subject to condittona. (See R~:sol.ution ;.ook) On roll call, the foregoln~ reaoluti.on was passed by the following voCe: AYES: CUMMTC~IONL~'RS: COMPTON~ HERBST~ KING~ MORLEY~ GAULR NOES: C~~ ~StONERS: NONE P.BSENT: ~ ~.•iCSSIONI:RS: FARANQ, JOHNSON Com~nissioner ~cmpt~ n offered a~notion, seconded by Commiesioner Herbst and MOTION CARItI~;D (~ommissionP~s Farar.~ and Jo~~:~ROn being abaent), to approve Tcntati-~e rtap ot :tact lvc. £4'9 3ubject tn the followtn;; conditions: (1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8679, Rpvision 1, .1a granted suUJect to the approval of RQ~i.asaification '?o, 73-74--:3 (2) That the owner(s) of subje~t property sha11 conditin• Llv dedicate to the Ci.ty oi Anaheim a strip of l.and as t~equired for the fut extenafon of ~ fifty-IOUr foot i5/i') wide atreet trom the intersection cf Lea~~dro Street and "A" Street to thr~ south tract boundar.y, including necessai, standard propPrty :.ine sadii.; and said conditional dedicat'.on sha11 be conditio.-ed upon the n~~ed for a atxeer as determined by the City of Anaheir. (3) That should thia subdivisi.on be developed as more than ~ne su~3i~~iaion, ~ach aubdivisio~ thereof sha~l be suUmitted in tentative form for approval. ~ ~ MIN ~7'!s5, ~:1TY Pi.ANNINC COPIIYfISS10N~ June lb. 1974 74-266 FNVIRONM~NTA1. IMPACT REPORT N0. 126~ RE(:LA9SIFICATION N0. 73-ik-58, VARIANCE N0. 2603, AND 'tlsN'PATIV~_ MAP OF~,RACT 0. H679. REVI3YON I~O, 1_(~ontinuod) ~..._-- ~4) That a17 lots wiChin r.liie ~ract eha~l be aerved by underground uC~lllti~A. (5) That u final tract m3p of aub~ecl proper.ty shall ~e submieted to und appruved by Che City Council and than Ue recorded in ~ha Office of Che Orange County Recorder. (b) That etr.eet name~ ehall t~n appro~ed b~ the CiCy of 4naheim priar to upprova~ of a £i.nal tract map. (7) That drninage. of e~id propPrty ehull be disposad of in a manne+r s8tiafA~:rory to tha C'_ty Gnginoer. If~ in kl~e preparation oE ~he eit~ 6uf£icient grudlnR te required to nc~cec~aitate a gr:~ding parmiC, no work on grading wi11 he pormitted batween OcCc,bsr 1~C1i and April 15th unleae all required off-site drainage fucili.tiae haWe bean instu].l.ed and are oporati.ve. Poeitive aesurcnce shall be provid~d tha City that :~~~ch drainaga facili.ties will be complated prior to OcCOber 15th. Necasssry right~-nf-way for off-eite d':ainag~ facilitteA ehnlJ. be dedicated tu the City, ~r the Ciky Council shall have inftiaced condamnution proceedinga there._: (~he cos~a of which eha11 be borne by tha developer) prior to the commencemenC af grading operetions. The requ:lred drainage facilities sha11 be of a aize and type suffi.cienC to carry runo~f watera originating Erom hi.~aer properties thraugF~ eaid proper.ty to ultimaLe dlsposal as app~oved bv th~ City ~ngineer. Said drainage facilitiea ehall be the firet item of L~~n and ehall b~s co-aplete~f and be functional throughout the tracr ~nd i. downstrea:a boundary ot' rhe property to the ultimate point of clieposa~ r.a the ieauance of any fit~al buildin~ inapectiona or c~cc~ipancy permiCs. Druinrsge diatrict reimbureement agrc~emente may be made av:.;ilable to the develop~:ra of. said property upon Cheir request. (81 That the owner(s) of aub~ect properey ehall pay to the Ci.ty o£ Anahe'_W ..:.e a-.pr~;riatQ park and recrAation in-]-ieu fPes a~ derermined to be ~pptopr~ate by the c:ity ~ouncil., said fees to be paid at the time the buflding permit is iasued. (9) That fire hydran~s ahall be installed and chargr:d as required and derermined to be necfaeary by the Chief of Che Fire Department ~rior to commencement o£ striictural £ra~ing. (10) That grading, excavr~tian, and all other conatruction activiti.es shall be con- duclad in such a manner so as to minimize ehe possibility of rny silt originating fr~iu th~s ~roject being carried into the San~a Ana R~ver ;~y ~~orm water originat- ing frcm or flowing schrough thie pro~2ct. ~ ~ MII~U'CGS, CITY PIr1NNING COMI~IISS~ON, June 7.0, 19'14 7G-2G7 1?NVIRONMEN'LAL IMYAC'P -• 1'U13LiC NGARINC. HENRY F. AND T:THGL C. llF.i, GIORC,YO, 1535 Wc~e~t RGPOR'P N0. 120 L~- I'ul.mA Aveuun~ Anaheim, Cu. 92f1C1, Owners; E. R. 1~ULLF.R, ~ 2535 West La Pulma Avenue~ An~iheim, Ca. 91.801, t~F~:nt. Prop•• FtECLASSIFICATIQN erty deycribed nr~; An irregulnrly-c+heped pArcel of. ]nnd NU, 13-1G-59 condleCl.nh of ttppr.ax~m~itely 62.5 acres l.oc.:+ted r~ouCt,arly of ~~ SAl1tU An~ Ro~d, ap{~roxira~it~>ly 7800 f.eet er~aC oE impertal CONAITIONAi, USE: Nighway. I'roperty pxehent.ly cla~sific:d k-A~ ACRI':U1,'~I~RAL, PE1tMi7' N~' 1471 ZUNr. VARIANCIi NC. 2608 REQUESTED CLA~SLFICA'CION: R-H-l0,U00 Rf:SIUf:NT1AL HILI.~SThi:, "- - LOW-DE.NSITY, S1N~LF.-FAMILY iv~~h: 7.'ENTATIVI~. MAP OF TRACT N0. 856U Ri:QUESTEO CONDITIUNAL USI:: PGTtMI'f A F1VE-UNIT P;.ANNED RF.SIll~N- ~ TIAL U1:VGt,OPMENT TO BE USLU AS A MOt1~L HOEi~ COMPLEX WI.TiI SALES OFFICE, WAIVING (A) MAXIMIIM NUMBrR OF FREE-STANDINC SIGNS AND (II) FWXIMUM SIGN ,ARL"A. REQU~ST~n V~P.IANCG: WAIVER OF R~QUIRGMENT THA'1 NO HOR.SGS kiE PBRMITTED ON LES5 TNAN AN ACRC OF LAND. TENTATIVE TiZACT R~QUI:ST: ll~VELOPER: "HE M~CARTI~Y i.OMPANY, 2535 West I~a Palma Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92801. ENGINEBR: WILLUAN ASSOCIA'PES, 12S South Cluudi.na Street, Anaheim, Ca. 92805. Sub~~ct property is propused for subdlvieion into 96 R-H-10,000 zuned l~ta. Approximately nine persons ind:tc:~ted their. presence tn oppositton to subject petitions. AesociaCe Ylanner Phill ip Schwartze read the Staf.f Report to the Planning Co~isaion dated June 10, t974, anJ sai~l 5Caff Repark is refer:ed to as if. oet fc•rth i.n ful.l in the winutes. Mr. Dan Rowland, 1000 W~st La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, the architect For the developer, nppeared before the Commisaio~. ~ind stated that the proposed pro~ect had been prevl~usly presented in depth and that he would address himself to the changea that had heen ms~de; that tliey had met with Ctie homeowners associattotic in the area in an attempC to reaolve any problems; that The McCar*_:iy Company wa~ standing on its original concept oP preserv- ing the natural terrain and devel.oping a pro,ject that fit the countryside; that ~he City Council had ratsed C.he question at Che previoua public heax'ing regarding provision for equestri.an capability and qualified in the same manner as R-H-22,0~0; thaC ~:ollec- tively everyone had ra•~ed about the pro~ect but Chey were unable to get i~ off. tF~e ground thus far; that chey had reduced the number of. proposed lota to 96 and that. 27 of. the lots were in excess of ttiat re^•iired for maintaining horses; that an equestr~~n trail was proposed to go through the project and the gaps i.n the equeaCrian en~;ement were occasioned Uy property that wa~: not owned by The McCarChy ~ompany; thar the dam in que_~tion on the aubject proPerr~ lield about two-acre feet uf water; thaC if the dam collapsed, Chere would be an insignificant fl~w of water; that the water in the dam was clear, with a minimum of algae; that the dam had served to impond ~~ater by Mr. Del Gioxgto for irrigating hi.s property over ~he years; that the 23-acre dam aite had b~en dis- ~ussed with Mr. John Collier ot tt~e Parks and Recreation Department and Mr. Coll_ier had expressed a keen interesC ln seeing tY,e parcel maintained in its natural ~tate; and that the data would be removed, if need be, and the property left as rough as Nossible. Mr. Rowlund then offered to answer any questiona. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commiasion that 14 telegrams and/or mailgrams had been rPCeived in opposition to s~ib;ect petition. Mr. Phillip Jou~~n-Roche, 21527 Mohler Drive, Anaheim, PresidenC of the Sant.a Ana Can~~~n ?raosrty t'h~mers ~ssociation, appeared before the Commiasion and preserted a copy of a pe~ition dated June 16, 1974, and signed by approx~mately 120 reaidents requesting no deviation from ttie present R-H-27.,000 zoning in the area. He stated the residents were aware of the features of the pruFoaed tract and that it had same guod featurea such as open space being retained in ita natural state, but they were also eware of the lot stzes and the adverse ef.fect on the li.fe style; and thac low denaiCy was not an isaue. He presented some charts and maps ahowtng the I;.~hler nri.ve Ar.ne.xation area which included R-H-22,000 zoning ae well as R-H-10,OQ0 zoniag, some cnmmer^ial, and about a 20-acre Farcel of R-1, and stated they were concerned about the R-H-22,000 r.oning :emainin~. F~e furcher atated thar. Lf the sub,ject property was developed R-H-10,000 it would create an island through Che R-H-22,000 property: that h~~ aub~ect property was ~urrotmded on ~ l~ ~ I4INUTES~ CJTY P1.ANNiNG COb4~tIS5IUN, June 1.0, 1974 74-268 ENVT.RONMENTAL It~Q'ACT RF.YUR'P N0. 12U, RECGAS5IFI(;A:iON N0. 73-74-59, CONDI'fI0Ni1L US~ P[:KMIT N0. 1471, VARIANCG N0. 26UH, ANI) 'T~NTATIVE MAP ~1F 'fMCT NU. 8560 M(Continuc~d) ~~_~__T. Chree aides by ~.xi~ting R-N-2?.~UOU deveiopment c~nd the exietin6 p~>pulaf.ion wao 89 hnmeH and the propoHnl w~~uld duuble that population and chong~ ehe liFe Htyle eince n11 of the exieting homesi had t•he Potenti~.i co rai.ae horses~ f{irm, e.~tc. ; khot n propocial. whereln ~n1'~ 27 of the 96 l~omee{ woulci meet .~ u~ie-l-~a.~: acre lot oize would bo en nttempC to l'olat A auper. R-H-? '100 davelopmenC; thnt, in hte oplnion~ !t uould nal• be ;enaihle l•o keep hc:ae3 on ~.~ R-H-l0,0UU lot; tl~at thc erecs~ etret-me, and pondH WB~R n nnturol. rr_c~ourc~~ kh+~t Ai,ahein- Atwuid preserv~ +lnd lt sho~ Ld ba saveG whilc it wa~ i.n n ealvaUle staCe; that r.here were uuly three .xrene in Annhetm thu~ allowad ^-i~-22,000 or groater ~~evelop~eent in size, w~r.-i Pernltn H~?ly havtn~ 275 xcres und Annheim Hills having ?.4 ucres dea:gi~~ted; that Anaheim ehould ta~ce lhe _esa^r~~ ~+tepa t.~ pr.usarve tho hnlf-t-crd eiec~ ~o give the r:eid~nte of Anahcim a choice of ~ivind environment ao tliey would not havP co look else- uaere for ±t. Mr. Roc.h~: prr.qente~t an uvarlay cf the propuecJ plt-n ehowing what the rr_ei- denCa of l-he aren would like developcd on Che aub,jec~ pruperty~ b~ing 64 one-half ucre lot5 so th~t horsea c~uld be •,ir~intained on the property if dasired and having an ~:anement acroae tha buck of the property tu preaerve thc~ ew~:a].ypr.us trees and c~lso preserve the conunon open ~~ond areF. Y.e ~tAted that R-H-].(~,~~~~0 development cUmprocnised with opeii space would aet a prec~dan~ ~nd open ~.~ the area for mnny s~~r.l-, developments ~~hich ~anuld ].ikely occur in the Lmmediate ~+rc.a. Mr, ;~tew~.rt iMues, Vi~:e Yr.eair~ mc uf the Santu .'1na Cunyon Property Ownecs Asauciation, uppeared beEure the C~mmlasi.on ~nd stuted the Hill un3 G'anyon rtrea requlred a cor~plecel~~ dif.ferenr zoning anc developm~nt. p}iilosoph'; ci~an Ct~e CiCy had be~n exercJ.eing to this point, and the City should bcgin us aoon a~; ~~oseible and perhape with the subject develop- men~; ~hat at Che preaenC tiaie no standards for hil].aid~ developmer~t exiated within the City of Anahei.:n altnough it had been talked about for some time; that the atandarde should be develored before any further large-scale development in ihe liil]. and Canyu~t a.rea. Regardina C:ie proposed deveiopment, Mr, Kosa stated that no definite disposition of thP 23 ecres vf open s~,ace liad been made; that rhe deveioper had sCated the people would own iti but Mr. Moss sCated he would questiun the acceptance of liabil.ity for it; that he did not feel it waa rignt to su5~ugate the property to unknot,m ~actort~; that Chare was a poset- bil~ty of substantiaJ, damage if Che dam should break under he~vy rain conclitions; und t~e did not see how 'he propusal coiild go thr~ugh witt~~oiit anawera to the quc>.etions he was poaing. tle further noted that the Ci~ of Yorba Li.nda was prer~eiit].y investigat:.ng a chaige against the sub;Ject devel.oH~er ~n regarde to de~ignated open space, which had been in the news media. Mr. A.1 Aragon, 6131 Drookmont Drive Yorba Linda, appeared before Che Coimnisaion and stated he wus a resident of the ExF '%0 development by The McCar'_hy Company in the City of YorUa Linda; that ttie City of Yo.~ba Linda was contemplating legnl action against The McCarthy Comp~ny re.gurding acreage dealgnated on the J:xpo '7U tract ma.p for a park; and that at ehe present Cime the acreage was a di`ch. l~e indlcated he had a number of picturea and newspaper clippinga depicting the condiCion of rhe ditch ~nd stated he iived next to the south end of s~i.d dltclt; that Th~~ McCart~iy Comp~tny had indicated they wou~d maintain the ditch; that ehe Health DepArtment had acknowledged mogquitoes, 3wule, etc., ~~n that property and t~e would not like the City of Anaheim to bec~me invnlved witt~ the same hasgle that Yarha Linda ~ias going through; that AIlC-TV hud a presentation last week on the YorUa Linda pro,jec:: and the ptob'lem t-e was di.scuseing; that whan the residents asked Mr. Bernard Smith, President of The McCarthy Company, if he would c_ean up the ditch, the emphatic answer hai ~~ec~~i "nu"; that the park aite would have. b~an a nice place for children to play except that: ~~e McCarthy Comp~ny had taken an unfortunate poslt~on regarding its s-ainte- nance; that during a one and one-half yeAr period of time, the area ha3 not been mowed except by the residents in the area; and that the City of Yorba Linda had not accepr•ed the park ares. ~n conclusion, Mr. Aragon encouraged the City Planning C~iarnisston Co look ak the dir.ch he was diacusaing bcfore approving the sub~ECt proposal. Mr. Ronsld Bevins, Attorney, 300 South Har.b~r Boulevr~rd, Analieim, appeared befure the Commission and stated he represented t•[r. Pierre Nicolas, who owned approximately 13.3 acres rst the north and weat enls of the eub,ject prop~rty; and zeiterated his staCemet,ts made at the Marct 18, 1974 public hearing concerning the sub~ect property. He stated hia client's objection to the proposed development ~:as not related to *_he zonjng but purelv with the alignment of Fai.rmont Boulevard which was indicated on the propoaed plan to croas his client's property. He also reiterated his etatements regarding the ptan that would align Che road Co the outaide boundary of his clir ~'s property or a~traight alignmeot; that at the Commiesion meeting of March 18 and the City Council raeeting of Apri_1 23, 1974, ~ .~ ~ MINUTf'sS, I,T.TY Fl.ANNiNG COMMISSION, Juna lU, 1974 lu"'26y T.NVIRONME.N7'Al, It~4'ACT FtL~P01t'I' NU. 1.2U, RrCI.ASSiFICATION N0. 73-74-59, CONDtTI(1N~ I. '15G PEItMIT NU_.___14T1.. VARIANC~ N0. 26U$. t1Nl) TGNTATIVG MAP QF 'TF G'f IrO. Q56U Ct~ 1 u~_„"_~ the UfFicc~ F.ngi.ur~~r had suggasted eome preeise alianmenh plan:+ which cou.ld he ready with~n eeveral. weeka uf thet tima; thak, i.n ~iie op[nlon, tti~i no.lse raforred t.o by the Environ- mentnl FmpucC ReporC wns related tr~ an 8H-foot wfd~ btrpet; und thnt l~eirm~nC Boul.evar.d as ehawn on tlie p1n~1s wn~ not an oificlal. City nlignmAnt. l!c mndc~ an obeer.vatlun that if l•kie tract map wH~ upproved und che developer. pr~~ceeded to dr~ w1iaC tho condltionA ntaC~d he muek da, (I('C~~C[ll:lOTl woul~! lnke place, tha hemea would ba conHl'r.ucced~ and there would bo no place £or tho rond uxccti~t through his client' e prc~pc+rr.y; and that the primary p'.anninq connl.der~~tiun dhould bo the alignment o£ tlie road. In canclueion~ h~ respectfully re-• yuo»ted thc-t ehe Planning Commi.~Rion and Stuf'f addrese themeelvee to tha pT•oblame hg wAs outlinius so thaC n condamnHtion sui~ wo~.1.d nor be ~n the C.ity'K hande. Mc, earnnrd S~aith, Praeldent of The McCarthy Company, uppenrod before r.h~e l.ommias~lan and stat~d they were prr.sently .ln negoti~tiona with thce (:ity of Yorbn Lindo regurding tl~a pnrk in thu Expo ' 7Q deval<~pment ancl he would l.ike [u di~tregard tlta atetement~s made by Mr. Aragon regarding that matter; that in reg+~rd to Mr. Y.oche'a stutemenh.s~ The McCarthy Compnnv wAy deflnitel.y intere~[ecl i-y the preservntion of the lif~ E~tyle of tha ar.ea; that althc~agh Mr. ltoche E-tated low denAity was not. an isoue, he hua ~ubmitted that densi.ty was tha key i~sur~; Hnd thnC Mr. Roche hnd in~isced on designing the nub~ect pro,ject without conyider~tion ot the engineer.ing probleme ttiat tha developer w+~e facing on [he site. Mr. Sm.lth "3CIIC~V regrirdi~g Mr. Bevina' sCatemeiir.s that the atlgnment of. Fairmont Daulevard as ahown on the plans wae establiahed for prlctical piirpuaes; lhee the developer had agreed to An easement .far ~nirmont Dou.levard and there would be no problem there. H.e further ar.ated in regarding Co ehe atareme.nt that a pr~cedeuk wouid be aet wiLh the proposed development, tl~at i.f a prec.edent was set ic would be n goud one; and tliat P.-H-22,000 was low d~:na:iCy and the propoaed pxo,ject wa~a a].RO low de~.aiGy. Mr. Moss further addreesed the Co~maisai.on r~aarding Che Yorba Linda dissenaion and stated h~ t~ad a verbnl atateme:~t thig date which he was allowed to quote frouo Mr. aamolian of tha City of Yorb~ Linda indicating that the City Attorney of that city was invest~.gating the situatl.on for a poeaible r_onaumer fraud. He furLher atated, in tiia opinion, that he d1d noC f:eel th.e point could be di.scrPdited. 'TF1E PUBLIC HE.ARING WAS CLOSED. Cl-airman Cauer. 110tPd ttiat he wus aware of the Yorba Linda devel.opn~nC axid that it had appeared in the pr~sa; however, he did not kciow the 1ega1 aspect of it. In rPply to queeltuning by Commlasioner Morley, Mr. Mosa indicated he did not represent the same 1- neowners association thrst Mrs. Uinndorf repreaented. Cotrnnisnioner Murley theti noter~ thaz Mre. Dlnndorf had indicated she was in favor of the pro,ject. In reply to queationing by Coromissioner Herbst, Mr. SmiCh st~ted Lak "A" ~aaa set aside for open gpace and was common are~; tliat the developer was tryitig to eatablish an agreement througt~ the C(:6Rs to preserve the a•rea as a common a:pa and nrec'.ude lial,il...ty; and said CC&Rs would be subjece Co the City Ar~.torr.ey's approval; and tha~ the members ~f the home- owners asaociation would ~wn the area. Commissioner Harbst further inquired what would happen if :he homeownera decided the recreational area was a].inbility and also refuged to pay taxes on i.t, and Mr. Smith ind9.cated that was wliat they wcre t~i ying to work out with tlie City. ~ommissioner tlerbst tt~en noted that tiie queati.on h~~ was raising had been aoked pzeviously and was s[ill un- r~ngGered, including th~ *act that r_he City's interest in the open epace was ati1~. a nmIIyb~.n Mr. Smith stated that the City wae flexible as ;.o whether the recreational area woul.d be a park; thzt he did not see Che aame pxoblems the City saw as a co~nunity arrangemenC; and tlnat their at~orney ~+~ould wo:'k with Che City AtCorney to huve Che home~wners associaCion hand'le the liability. Cummissioner H~rbst added that the daw was used for irrigAtion~ purposes and no one ha3 been living around it, and it might be an attractive n~ieance; that the dam was deep and tl~ere ;~c~uld b~ liabili:y invalved if a child should drown in it; and that the propoagl was to conatruct a tract aro~ind the dam aite. ~ ~ MINl1TFS, CI'fY P1.ANNING COPL`1iSSIUN, June t0. 19)4 74-170 F:NVTRONPt1:NTAL IMP.4C'T RGPUR'1' N~. 120 ~ RRCI.ASS IItICATION N0. 7~~74-59 ~ ~ONDIT7.UNAL ll8P 'PERMIT N0. 1411,,,_V}~IAIVCF; Nt,~. _~bQ~. ANU 'TENTATIVE; MAI~OI~^PRACT tvU_,.,Q;~bU ~~uriti.nued) __.___ Mr. Smich aseur ~d ~:~?a Commier~i~n that frnm azi ~~nginearing etandpoint. [he dam would hold up; and tl~at tt Ci~era wae a problem of. ].tnbi liCy tiiun Eor th~ sAme reason thay woul.d fill ir. in. In r~~ly to qu~:st.vri:ing by Chairman Gauar, Mr, Smich atated by carvin~ up the hi1J.9 and t:l:'.~.~ iu che dr..u area~ lhey could devel.op wtt:h 132 lote. Cliairm~n Gauor enan noted Chat at the Pl.anning Commioaion maeting with tl~e residant~a of lho H111 ~r~d Canyon area at klie Anaheim Hille Clubhouse, the peopl.e .'.ndicnt~d ~heix fn,ereat i.n having more devalopmnnt without carvin~ up the hills. Comm.lse.ian~r H~rber. noted ChaC hc wae n.:•t oppoaed Co emallEr lot~ aa n Cradr~•-off for open epace I~ut he qu~sACtoned how it cou1J he pr~sorve~l ~-s beuuti.f.u1 opan spaaa, and Mr. Smith sLaCed ttsiK cuu.ld be accoropliohed thr.ough [tz~ CC&Re. Commisaioner tlexbst Chen noted tha~ the open spaca !n the proposed ptio~ect was not usab'le, except vieibly, us n trade-aff~~ and Mr. Smith etnted there waro other opinione in that regard. In repl~y to questioning by Cl~airman Gauer, Office Engi.neer .Jay TiCus advised tl~at the horizonta'. alignment of Fairmont Boulevard waR pratty fi~:m in tha mind of tha Eng:ln~e:ring Di.vision ak the present time, how~ver, the vor~ical alignment er profile was not; and that easements were necessatiy Eor. the uukeide lirnita of the slopes. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advir:ed the Comniseiun thut the preciae alignmAnt oF Fa~'m~iit Buulevard had not been presented oz~ acted upon to this part•l~ular time; tliat until •lt was preeented and accepted by the City Council, there wus not r~ precise plan; end that the coiidition of appcoval set forth in the Steff Report made the pro~ect subject to the prc~cise alignment .rhen accepted. Mr. Titus further clari.fied Chat the alignment indicated on Che proposed pl.ana £or devel- upment would be the f inal alignment and t~ha t ttie vertical ~elavations ~rere yet to ba determined to satl.Afy Che outer limite of the s~opes; and tha~ the green area to be taken in woul.d be determined by the profile also. In reply to que~tioning by Co~mni.oaioner Herbet, Mr. Titus adviasd that some af khe open space would be represented in the sl~pes of the road; that he could nat give a time wlien the prof ile would be ready but that he was hoping Che right-of-way could be obtained without Eoing to tl;e Ci.ty Council. Mr, Smith stated the developer had been in discassion with.Mr. Ti.tus and would grant the easement baeed un the horizontnl alignmec-t; and that t'hey would be discuasing the vertical alignment. Commiesioner. Compton noted fram the Staff Report that the petitioner was requeating to be incorporated in the Moh1eY Dri.ve Study Ares to be able to have gr~vel on. th~ sides of the streets and that wiChout standard curbs and guttera, the cantrol of drai.nage wou].d be impaired and atreet sweeping wauld be more difficult, as well as delineation c.f clie atreet. Mr. Smith stxted he hud an o~en mind regardiug the street improvements alttiough hs would probably debate the mntter with Staff; and that in aome areas he was surc, Chey would have curbs and gutters but in so~e ,~reas they coul.d be el:iminated. Coaaraisaioner Compton noCed thar. at the public hearing on MArch 18, i9%4 there was some coaanent about tr.aversing the property ratYzer than providing a bridal path along tlie east end, and Mr. Swith stated they had come to the conclusion that it would be to nu avail since 't would be taking people into areas where there were no facilities. In reply to queationing by Coisni..s~oner Herbot, Mr. Smith atated that the l.ot deaignated for the maintaining of. horses would p:obably use the atre~ete io get to the trails ae others in the area did. Commisaioner Compton noted that he had voted against the pro~ect when it was Eubmitted previouAly but not necesearil.y because it wns not a besut:lful pro3ect; that i.t looked like something that could be a vary nice pro~ect, howaver, the.ne was no f ixm alignment of Fairmont Boulevard~ that the prohlems regarding the co~mon areas had not been reaolved, ~ ~ MtNUTE5~ CITY PI..ANNINC (:OM11I5SION~ June 1.0~ 197~ 1/+-271 CN~IKONMr.NTAL IMPACT RF,POItT N0, 1.20, RE:CI.A55IFICATI(.~N No, %3-74-59. Cc)NPI'fIONAi. USis PERMI'f N0. 1G71~ VARI.ANCF N0. 2608~AND 7'F.N7'A'fIVE_MAP OF 'fKAC'x_N0. ~3560~Continued)____.~. ~ th~t if thn proper.ty was Jevaloped R-H-21.,U00 the hcr:~~".9 cuuid ba ecc~mmodeted, nnd i.f thc+ pro~ect was going ko bo ucCed upun at thie meeting, he would have tu vote "no," ni~d tha petl.tior~ar might wiel-~ to requ~st n continuannc to work out eome oF Chn problema die+cuseed. Chai.rman Cuuer noCed chnr. ha haJ vnrad for the proJect: aa previouµly submiCtad~ however, i.f the resi.dente wanted It-tl-22,000 he would vote IIQ1ilIlY'C the proposal at Giiia time. Commisat.oner Herbet concurred in Chairman Gau~r's atAtemenCy and Atated thia wae n very fine proJec~: but the City wao faced with problema that ehould be answerc+d; thnt thare would 'ue horsea with no ar.ceas; tlint he d•Ld not agree wir.h R-H-lU,000 zonin~ for the eub~ect properCy; that he wuuld 11ke to oee ttie open space questi.one rasolved with reepect t~ thE posRibillty of a City park anci/or incLuaion in tha CC&Rs. Commieaioner Morley noted that hca }~ncl voted for the pro,jact as previously submftted eince~ i.n his opinion, i.t wae ex~cCZy what the Cily was trying to hnve deve].oped i.n khe urau r~nd eince one of the homeownere agsaciatione in the t~rea had indicatesl Chey were in Iavor of 1C~ and ttiat he waA atill. i.n Fttvur uf it. It ~ras noted thaC Environmentol Impact Rep~rt No. 1'LO had been c.ertif iad by the C~.ty Cotincil on April 23, 1974. Commiasioner Compton oti£ered Reaolution No. PC74-119 and moved for its passage and ~dop- tion to recommend to the Ci~y Council disapproval of Petition for Reclar~eificatio•n No. 73-74-59, based on the fore~o~ng findings and that tha property ia aesignat~d on the Anaheim General Plan for ].ow-denaity reaidenCial development ~nd included undar a Mohler Urive Mnexation area resolution of inlent to the R-H-22,000 Zone, and approval of the proposa.l would break. dc~wn the integrity of t11e R-H-22,Q00 ioning in the areu and establish an undeairable precedent for other similar requests which would further break down the R-H~-22,000 zoning. (See ResoluCion Book) Qn zoll call, the f.or~g~ing resolution was passed by the folluwing ~~ote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: COMPTON, H~,RBS'T, KING, GAVER NOES: CUt~iIS5I0N~:RS: MORLEY ABSGNT: COI~R-1ISSiONGRS: FAItA,'VU, JOHNSON Commiisaioner Compton offered Resolution No. PC7~--120 and moved for its p~~~sage and adoption to deny Petition ~or Variance No. 2603 on the basis thxt aince the Planning Commiseion has recommended disapproval af the recJ.a9aification o£ aubject property, the proposed develop- ment could not be accumplished within the site develapment standards of thE current zontng on suL•,ject property and, further, that the lots propoaed fQr Che keeping of horaes are not accessible to the horse trails except by use of public atreets. (See Resolution Book) On r~ll call, the foregoing rceolution was paRaed by the follawing v~te: AYES: COhQdISSIONERS: COMPrON, HERBST, KING, GAUER NOES: COPIlyIISSIONERS: MORLEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONF.RS: FA.RANO, JOHNSON ComQnissioner CompCon offered Rasolution N0. FC74-121 and moved for. its passage and adoption Co deny Petition for Conditional Uae Permit No. 1471 on the baeie that a•lnce the Planning Commission has recommended disapproval of the reclaseification of ~ub~ect property, the proposed development could not he accomplished within the site developnent standards of the current aoning on s~ibject property. (See ResoluCion Book) On roll call, r_he foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: (:01"Il~IISSIONERS: COMPTON, HERI~ST, KT.NG, GAUER NOES: COMM(ISSIONERS: MOItLEY ABSENT: COFliyIISSIONERS: ~ARANO, JOIiNSON Commisaianer Compton offered n motion, eaconded by Courtniasfoner Herbet and MUTION CAR1tIED (Comomissionera Fgrano end Joc~nson being absent), to dieapprove Tentative Map of Tract I3o. 8560 since the Planning Commisaion hae recommended disapproval of. the reclnsaification of aub~ect propErty and the proposed development could not be accompltshed withln the site devel~pment standarde ~f ttie current zoning on sub~ect property. S ~ ~ MINUTE~, (;ITY P1.ANNINC CUMMI3SION, Jime 10, 1974 ~4-Z~Z RFCE53 - Chuirmun Gauex declared a roaeda nt 4:25 p.m. RCCUNVI?NF. - Chairman Cnuar reconveiied Chc+ weeling at 4:35 p.m.. Connaissiot~ore i I~aruno und ,lohnson being abeent. RE~I.ASSIFII;ATION - PUBLIC FI~ARING. Yl1YLLi5 I. B12ANSON, WILFRED DUNAT.D GIBBUN~3, ANU N0. 73-74-hU MARGAItET F.LIZAHE'~N SfiAF~ER. 135A2 f:at~linn Way, Palm Descrt, Ca. ~^ 922G0. ch~n~~~re: ARTHUR CNRISTCNSUN, 10402 MoradR Drive, Or~nge, Ca. VAKIANCE ',0. 2611 926G7, Ag~nt. proporty describeci as: A rectangularly~H}19P0(~ QAXC(11 '~ ~ of land coneiptinR of appxo~cimately .7 ncre located at the northweet c~rnar of 5avanna Street and Knott Ntreet, having npFroxim~te frontages of 137 feet ~~n the north side of Savanna Street end 218 foet on the west Ride of Knott SCreet~ and taving a m.aximuca deplh of upproximaCely 218 ieFt. Property pr~oently clnaei- fied R-A, AGRICUL'fURAL, 7.ONE. REQUESTED CLA:~SIFICATION: R-3, MULTT.PLF.-FAMILX ItESIDF.NTIAT.~ ZONE RF.QUESTED VARI.ANCE: WAIVER Or (A) MAXIMUM DUILDING H~IGHT WITNiN 150 FE~T OF AN R-A ZON~~ ~H) MINIMUM rRQNT S6THACK~ AND (C) MINZMUM 3IDE YARD SGTBACK, TO CONSTRUCT THREF. MULTTFL~-FADSILY UNITS. Two p~rsons indicat~d their preeence in oppoaition to sub~ect petitiona. Asaistant 7.onin~s Supervisor Annika ~antalahti read the Staff Report to the Planning Coaunission datec' June 10, 1974~ and said Stnff Report is referred to ae if oet forth in tull in the minutas. Mr. James Roe, 3~i00 Irvine Avenue, Newport Iieach, appeared 'oefore the Cowmiaeion repre- senting the prope~rCy own~r, and indicated he was available to answar ar~y questione aon- cer.ning the propasal for development of subject property. Mr.s. Wanda Campbe:.l, 825 South Rome Place, Anaheim, appeared before the (:ommisr~ion and stated she 'lived ,~ust acroea the street from the proiect; Lhat the propoaed apartments would look into h:,r back yard; r.hat ut the time she purchased hen c~ae, ahe was in hopes that the area wou:d be developed r.esidential; that if the proposal was appruved a traffic eignal would be needed at the interaection because it waR Already dangeroud to make left turns off Knott Street Co enter. her tract; and that she woul.d ~rather aee single-atory apartments. Mra. Campbeli inqu:~.red when the carwash, which was approved previously for r.onstruction on Che sub,ject propert:y, would be conatrucCed, and Miss Santaluhti clarified that the appraval nf the carwash woul.d be terminated if the proposal was approved. Mrs. Csmpbeli further inqulred concerning the sanitation plckup, etc., and in what areas the trash aollection would Ue, and ~Loning Supervisor GhaXles Roberts advised that the SanitaCion Division had indicated that the trash collsction coii.ld not be handled at the rear o.E the aubject property since the trucks w~uld not enter an area where they would have tu back out. 'L1iE PU$LIC HEA.RING IJAS ~LOSED. Tt~e Planning CowmisE~ion entered into discuesion regarding the propoaed mutual ingresH and egress and the Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised that said mutuaJ. access might cauae some probleme which the applicant should diACUSa ::ith his 3ttorney since it was not a planning or zoninf; matter but u tremendous legal probiem inasmuch as easementa could nat be granted to one's self. The Planning Co~ission entered i.n~o discussion regarding the trash atorage and collection areas, dUring wiiich Mr. Roe advi~ed that the Sanitation DiviRion had not reco~mended or auggested a suitable location to thia time„ h~wever, he was agreeable to whatever storage or locution for same that would be required by the City. In reply to questioning by Comtnissioner Morley, Mr. Roe atatsd the ownera of the buildinge wouYd live in the front unii:a nnd would be taking the trash out for pickup, as required. ...., ~ ~ ~ MINUT~9, CITY YLANNINC L'UMMISSION~ Junc~ ].U, ].974 RRCI.A98 1~zCATION N0. 77-74-GO ANU VARIANCE~j,O. 2fi13; (~ontinued) 14-273 C~mmiseioner Murl.ay of£ared a motion. aeconded by CammisAioner King and MOTION CAkRY~A (Cammiseionera l~aLano and JohnAnn being nbe~+nt) ~ that Ch~s Planning Crnmni ;~ion recommunde to the City Cauncil thek tti~s eub1ect pro~ec~ be exempt frc~m the rnquir~mont tu prepara an Enviromm~ntal Impflc t Itaport purauant to the provlelone of the Californi.a L'nvironmenGal Qualit.y AcC. CotomieAic~ner Morley oPtured Raeolution No. PC74-122 and m..^~a for ite pae~sage snd adortion ta recommend tu the Clty Council approval of ReclasRifict~~.tion N~. 13-74-60. Rub~eat to the pekitianer requesting termination af Reclaesification No. 64--65-78 an~] Condi.ti.onal Uee Permit No. 66<< on the eub,~ect property; thnt tt~e traeh ecorage and pickup areae shall be provided nnd ~.ocuCed ao required 'oy the Sanitatlon Ui•vitiion nnd 1n accordance with approved pJ.ane on file wlth ttie ~fFice: af Ct~e Di.rector of Publ~lc Works~ ae Atipulated to by the pRCitiuner; and sub,~ ect to condi.C.ions. (See Resolutian ~iook) On roll call, the f orug~ing resoluti.ou Was pnaeed by the Eollawing vote: AYE3: COMMlSSTUNF.RS: COMPTONy HERB.^~T~ KING~ MORLL~i~ GAIJER NQES; COMMI3SIONERS: NONE ABSEN'f: COhAlISSIONERS; FARAIJO, JQHNSON Comwiseioner Morley offered Resolution No. PC74-123 and movPd for iCs paseage and adoption to grant Petition Eor Vn~:i;ance No. 2611, granting waiver of the maximum building height within 150 £est of ttie R-A Zone on Che basie ti~at the Anaheim Genera~. ?lan designates the adJacant R-A proper ty for medium-denaity residenkia~ uea; granting waiver of the minimum building setback adj acenC C o a primary h'_~hway on the basia that the enCire thre3-lot development' i~ pro posed for deveLopment at the same time and the average struckural set- back o£ the three 1 ots would he ?.0 feet; granting waiver ot the minimum building setback ad~acent to a loca 1 atreez on the brssis tliat. the proposal~ ae preaented, would noC be detriu~ental to the .:oromunity, and that ti~e waiver ae granted f.or thia epecif.ic development ehoul.d not set a precedent f or. other ptoperCies sFeking a-1 encroachmenC in the minimum r~quired landocape seCbnck adjacent to a local stre~t; that approval of this ~variance is eub~ect to Che pet i tioner rPquesting terminakion of Reclaesification No. 64-65-78 and Condieional Use Permit No. 664; and subject ta cunditi~na. (See Resol~~tiun Book) Qn roll cal.l, the f oregoing reaolution war~ pasaed hy tt-e following vote: AYES: COA4dISSIONERS: COMPTOir', HERAS'~, KING, MORLEY, GAUER NOL'S: COMMISSIONERS: NONL~ ABSENT; CaMMZSSI0A7ERS: FAFiANO, JOE~iSON CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLTC HEARiNG. FItED AND CELTA FLORES, 801 S~uth Ramblewood Drive, PEkMTT N0. 1473 Anaheim, Ca, 92804, Owners; requeating permiasion to ~SiABLISH A ~ MOTORCYCLE REPAIR AND OUTAOOR SALVAGE YARD, WAIVING (A) REQUIR~D SCRF•ENING Oi~ OU'PDOOR USES AND (B) MINIPIUM NUMBER OF PAItF:ING SPACES on pruperty descr.ib ed as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land conetsCing of approxi.- mately .48 acre having a frontage of approximatcely 140 feet on the north alde of Elm Street~ having a m~aximum de pCh of approximately 150 feet, and bei.ng locar.ed approximatQly 165 feet west of t~tie cente~ line of Anmheim lioulevard. PraperCy presently clsssified M-1, LIGHT INDIISTRIAL, ZONG. One pereon indicx t ed his pre~ence in oppoaition to sub3ect pet3tton and it wae noted that two lett~rs had been received, also in oppoaition. AsaletanC Zoning S upervisor Aunika Santnlahti read the Staff Report to the Planning Commiasion dated Jc~ne 10, 1974, and said Staff Repart ie referred to ~~s if set forth in full in. the minutes. Mr. Fred Flores, the petit ioner, appeared before the Commission and stated th~ pxoposed use would be atrictly for inaur.ance salvage; that they would not be dismant'ling but were in the buainesa a f contacting the inaurance companies~ and then picking up and storing the wrer,ked motorcycle s; that they notified dealers through flyers ~nd they subsequently ~ub- mitt:ed their bide; that the dcalera were welcame to submit sealed bids al.so and when the bids were opened the high bidder was notified and the moC~rcycles were then deliverec: *_o t~~t dealer. ~ ~ MINU'I'E8~ CITY I'LANNtNG CUMMISSION, June 10, 19~4 ~4-2~~~ CUNDITIONAL USE P~RMIT N0. 147 3~continuHa> Mr. Adolf Ml.ller, 1859 R,zndom Drive, Anaheim, appeured bafore the, Coam~iar~ion r~nd atated he had submitted a lo-:tcsr which w~s on file with the City Ln oppoeitlon to thc RUh,~t'.CC petition; that the tenant: ot hia ~r.operty in tt~E area of the aubject properGy wae Anahaim Toyota; thnt his tennnt liad complainad about tha C;ul£ 01]. eCation that looked ltke a junk yard on Anaheim Boul.evard; that his proparty had appr.oximat4ly 18]. feat on Anuh~ei:n Boule- v+ird atid occupied all oE tha east eide af ttie ptoPerty in questi.on; that tl~ey did not objact to the repair of a~otorcycles buC did ob~ect to th~ ~ervi.cing ot Chem; t:hat: they ob~acted to the waivers Hincia they also IIAd I1RV rhis problero tt~emeQl.vee and were not permitt.ad to do thinga out in the open so Ctie'y did n~t think thae Mr. Flores ~hauld be able to do 0o eihher; [IZat Clm atreet waa usunlly crowded due to on-atreet parking; and th~-t lie had purr.hased ~dditiona]. off-eCree[ parking for his proper.[y at coneiderable axp~:nsc~ xnd would like tl~e City to enforc~ the exieting ru].es in that regnrd. In rabuCtal. Mr., Flores s~t:uted hc intended tu uae the rec+r af the properry tor off-c~CreFt parking; that he wou11 ag~~ee to acroenitt~g of the chainl.ink fence and he had Cwo securiCy d~gs ta protect the ealva~;e; that the aulvag~ would be kept in order at al.l ~ime+~ Fxt ground level. so tl-at peop.l.e could come Co see it nnd l~id on the ealvage: that he did nok know why Clie Toyota der~l.eYahip thuught the prapoeal would hurt taeir bueinese; that where the old laundry/cleaners had been locaked, r.here were wrecked cara there and he had never ob~ected to that; that the Anaheim Ru1leCin had paper. bl.owing in the area wliich he tiad been i~icking up; and that he inCended to keep up hia property in a nsat mnnner. THE PUBLIC HI:ARING WAS CLOS~D. In reply to questioning by Commisaioner King, Mr. Flores etipulated that the motorcycles would not ba atacked and that there would be no sPlLing o.f purtg, and the exieting and proposed chain:link fencea would be acreened wlth redwood slats. In reply to quec~tioning by Commissi.oner Herbst~ Mr. Flores stipulated there would be no dismantling of the motarcycles and the wrecked motorcycles would be brought [o Che sub~ect property for storage for 1.neurunce purpoaes. Zoning Supervia~x Charlea R~~berts made nn observalion thnt th~ proposar appeared to be more uf a storage and impo.ind yctrd than a salvage yard. ln re~?;~ r~~ queat~oning by (:hr-irman Gauer, Mr. Flores atated the bidder~ would buy the dc~uoliahed motor.cycles "as i.s" snd Che motorcycles wauld not be ter~ted to see if they operated or were functional; that some o£ the bids would be thraugh the €lyers wt~ich indicate the area on the motorcycles th~t was wrecked, i.e., the rear, front, etc. In reply to queaCioning by Commiseioner Herbst, Mr. Florea indicated there would be ~wo emp~uyees at the sub~ect location~ bsing his wife and himaelf. Cormnissioner C~mpton questioned the referencE contained in [he Staff Report, page 1, paragr.aph 6, thaC tt-e peCitioner had indicated a possibility that one of the ofiices might be rented out and he inquired what type of tenant might be occupying thati epace. Mr. Florea atated thrst the Cenant mighC be a draftsman or a real estate person. Mr. Roberta pointed out that aince the subject property was in the M-1 Zone, the type of uses would be strictly limi.ted; that a draftaman could probably fall within the scope of an arr.hitectural or engineering flrm but other u9e~ not normally permitted in the r[-1 Zone would require a conditional uae permit applic~ztion. :Ir. Roberts thet~ questianed what the repair aapect uf the propoaed use entailed, and Mr. Flores AtRted that hopefully he would fill his yard and would not have to go to repaira. Thereupun, Mr. Flores stipulated that ther~ would be n~ repairs to the motorc.ycles per- formed aC the ~ub~ect location. The Plann~ng Commiasion entered inko discuasion with Mr. Flores regar.ding waiver of the requfred parking, following which Mr, Tlores withdrew his requeaC f~r said walver and stipulated Co providing the required 25 parking apacea aince no hardehip was present. Tn reply to questioning by Commiasioner Iting, Mr. Flores atipulated that there would bs iio mure th$n 100 motorcycles atored/impounded on the aub~ect property at uny one time. ~ ~ ~ MINUTFS. CI7'Y P1~11NN1PIC CUMMT.5SION, ,fune ].0~ 197i CC~N't. '.T):ONAI. 115~ PL'_RMI~P NU_ 1473 ((.ontinued) 74-275 '~lr. P~bc~rte auggeated Chc~t the Commisaion might wiah Co ~rnnt the czubject r_andiCianal. uflc~ porm. for s two-ycnr perlnd of rime, sub~ect to revic~w by the Planning Carnmlr~eion for an ctdCit ~nHl peri.eci of time. Coma~l.eal.oner King offered u moCion, eecondr.d t,y Cc~mmi.setonar llexbaC. cind MUTICIN CARkI~ll (Cam~iKSionere F~rano gnd Johnson being tihaPx~t.), Chut the PLRtlll~il~, c:ommtc~;+lon recommends Co the L'Lty Cour-cil that the sub~ect pra~PCc be axempk from Che r.equirecaenC Co pre~nre an Envlronmentni Impact Raport p~trs~ianC Co the pt'ovi.eiony of the Cnl.ifornla Env1.r~~nmr.nCa1 QuAlity AcC. CowaiRSion~~x King of.fered [teeioluriun No. PC7G-1L4 ~nd moved tor 1Cd paea+3g~a and adoption Co grant F'etitlon for Conditionr~l Use Permit No. 1473 for un "insurance impc~ur.d yard" a«d not r~ repair r.nd snlvuge y~rd, ainae thc peti~inn~r. i.ndir.ated thaC Lhe mo[or.cyclc~s wnuld be hel.d flt r~,~~ sub~ect property until aold by tt•.e various inaurance r..ompanies; thae »t-r_ peti.tioner wi:hdrew r}~e requeflted w~livera; eub,ject to the at:l~ulatlons of thc petitiune~r nnd the. foregaing findin~r~; and ~ub3ect Co r_onditi~~nR. (Sec kasoluti.on Baolc) On roll call~ the foregoing rec:~lution was ?~ased hy Che tollowin~ vote: AYES: CON4dLSSIONERS: CAMFTON, I~~RB~T~ KING, MORI.EY, CAUT.E: NOGS: C01`t1`!tSSIONERS: NONE AESEIdT: t:OM~IISSIUDIERS: FAR.ANO, .IUtiIJSON CONDITION~:~ USE - FUBL1'C f1~ARING. ROBERT D. HAMYTON, JR., 15'1.4 Mable Strest, Annheim, PERMIT Nb. i472 Ca. !s2a~~?, Owner; DAVID W. CNAPI~'1AN, 905 South ~uclid Street, Suite 1.08, `- ~ Fullerton, Ca. 92.633, Agent; requesting pPrmisaion to ESTABLISH A WINE- TASTTNC, RE;TA]:L1:NG AND WAREHOUSING FACILITY 1~'ITH WATVER 0~ MIN[MUM NUMBER OF PP.RKI;VG SPACES on properCy d~acribed us: An irregu.lnrl.y-ahaped parce], of' 1$nd consisting uf appr.r~xim~~tely .~~1 ar:e having a fronta~e of appzc~ximatel.y lOQ fee~ on the north side of Macichester Avenue, having a~ximum depth of appxoximate.ly 1.95 feet, And beitig l~~cated approxlmately 320 f.eet r:ast of the cenCerline of Loara StreeC. Proper[y preaent'~y classified C-2, GENERAL CONAtFRCIAL, 7.ONE. Oae person indlca~ed his presence in oppositian ~o subjecti petition. AssibtF-nt 'Lonxng Supervisor Annika Santalahti read Che SCHf.f Repart to tlie Plamiing Commis:3ion dated June ].0, 1974, and said Staff Report is refer•red to as if set for.th in full in the minutes. Mr. David Chapman, the get~.tioner, appeared before the Co~-iasion and c~tated Che proposed operation was unique and not like a normal liquar stare that war~ open during regular. hours; thut ttie clients woald be Castirtg and sCudyin~ the ~rines in Che clasaes and that they would have the apportunity to p~rchase some of the wines~ and the hour.s had to be during orher rhan normxl businesa hours so that wo~king people could particlpate; that the retail facility wus dir.ecLly tied to the classes and there would l~e mare than adequate parking; ti-at in regnrd to condition o£ ~pproval No. 1, as seC forth in ~he StaEf Report, tliere~aas little or no foot traffic along Manchestex Avenue at the subjecC location and he did noC know wt~y si.dewalks would be required; and that tlie a:~:a kae li.ght ind~tstrial and the sidewRlk requirement might preven[ them from getting startecl. Mr. Fr.anlc Damata, represenCing Pow~X Tool & Suppl.y Company, upFeared before the Cu~nission in opp~aition to flubjecC petition and etated he wr~s concerned about the requesCed variance sitice hie company occupaed the location nexC door; that his campany "wi7.1-called" to approx~mately 42 cuatomers per day wlYC~ parked in front o:~ his building and he was afraid that a~n on-sale beer anci wine busi.ness would enCai]. tho~e cuetomers parkl.ng ~`.n h:is apace; that also there was a two-hour parking ].imit and the proposed use in operati.on d~ring normal busineas hours would hamper his own buaineas; and that if the proposed classes were later than 5:00 p.m. then he would not ob~ect. Mr. Chapmsn statzd that, not in tl'-e way of rebuttal but as ineurance, his busineae had to be o[her than at reRular busineas houra because of ite nature. THE ~'UKLI(: llEr1RINC WAS :.LOSED. ~ ~ ~ MINUTE3, CYTY F1.ANNING COt~tiSSION. JunE 1.11 1914 CONQT.TIONAI. ~JSE YERMIT Nn. 14~1 (CouCinuod) 74-27 ~~ T.n raply to queatlon~ing by Coarmlesioner King. Mr. Chapman etated that pre:~RnCly hie buei- ne~is in Santa Ann wae open 10 houre a waok and during that time they ware genc+ruttng about $7~i,000 n yaar in ealea; that th~ bueinees wns a hobhy and thay wer.e noC taking i.ncome from the busi.nese; that they i~nd baen reque[~Ce~l by tiiPir customere to offer c.lnxoes ~nd Y~e wae re.quoseina to do ao on 7'huredey and Friduy between 7:00 p.a~. and 9:3U p.m. n~'ter people had had a chl;n~p to eat their dirner; ond Chat ttiere would be beCweax~ 20 and 40 people attendins thc~ claKees. Mr. Ch~{~man fuxthar ataL•ed thaC they anticipated holdin@~ t•wo clar~aee or Saturdayr~, at 11:Q0 n.m. and at 2:00 p.m.- a~d on Sundays at 1:00 p.m.; arcl that thu ratail fb.cilitias wo~~ld be patxonized snainly for thc cla~s parCicipante following the seminare. Tn reply to queetioning hy Chairman Gauer, Mr. Chapman stated normally Che~e wou.ld Ue approximately 2Cf atudpnta in [he cltt~ead~ howevcr, they could accodnnudate as many ns 40; that the operation was not wine tastin~, ae such, but that the clasa structure wauld involve study of the wines of the waxld und would entail. annlyais of threohold samples, incl~uding a bresAkdown o£ the content of wic~~s ~~f partic~l3r i:rCer~et [o a per.eon; rind ''.~at inCeresC i.n tlie sem:nare wae increasing rapidly. Ir, reply t~ r~uest:ioning by Comm.ieaioner Morley, Mr, liai,~pton, the proparty owner, atated Che other uses in the building ul• the pr~sent t•lme w~re a mechanic and two upholst~rara whose houre were fxom 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., fi~re days a week. Cowaiasiun~ar Herbst noted rl~at Che propoaed we~rehouae was a~~ery large facility and ~t tt~e sub~ect lr.cation it did not appear. ;:o be suitable, and Mr. Chapman eCated thnt with suleu of $15,UU'J a year in fine wine~ ~:hey needed ~ warehouaing facility; that the retai.l fncility would hare d few racka paCternad af.ter the Engl.ish wittsmaker's ;speration; that the wi.ne- tac~ting alrzesroam wauld be aeC out with picnic tables painted white~ eo ao t~ ~udge the wine coJ.ors. and the etudanta would slt on benches; that tha proposal waH not ].ik.: tl~e BruuksidA Winery whera t:he patrona ~ust tastecl Che wine to find somett~ing they l.iked; t}~at tiie opE:ration would be apen to the general. public but thie wa.s misleeding becaueie they hfld a waili.ng liat of about 1,000 wine lovers wh~~ would be •lnvired to attend the classes. Commissio-ZQr Herbst inquired if r~ cuatomer could walk in and buy a bottle of wine, and Mr. Chapman stated their cpen houra wQre from 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on Wednesdays Hnd frou~ 9:OU a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on Saturdays. Mr. Chapmr~n furtt~er stated thaC Che retai.]. wou'ld caincide with the classroom hourA for purposes of economy and they would have some ott~er rstail hours which were not firmly fixed, however, he could anticipate and atip~ilate that the e:~tire operati~n would havs hours from 3:30 p,m. to 9:30 p.m. on Wednesdays, T1-ursdays, and Fr{.days, witt-in abaut seven to eight montha, and from 10:00 a.m. to 5:«0 p.m. on Saturdays, and from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. ~n Sundays; and C.hat the tastings am~ ~iae of the parking space would be during their regular businesa hours. Commissi~ner Herbat inquired whar type of trade was anticipated during the 3:30 p.m. t„ 5:OU p.m. period duzing the week, and Mr. Chapman stated that when they would be open ;~_ no classes were being held, typically Chey would be fi111ng mail ordere and at the mc,•~r they wo~ild probably have two or three cuatomers coming in ~nd looking around the war~:- house; and that the avera$e customer spent over $200 buying one case of wine. Coannissianer Herbst noted, in his opinion, that the propoaed use was similar to Brooksi~_~ Winery; and that he did not believ~ the propoaed use would be detrimentaJ. to Che ~-re~i as it was preaented in the Staff Report. Mr. Chap~an stated the prapoaed operation was substantiall.y different frow the Brook~_i.~~ Winery; that the proposal was a luw-deneity type operation gnd the highest density wuuld be after the clac~aes when the studente would want to buy some of the wines chey tas•ted. In reply Co questioning by Commissioner CompCon, Mr. Chapman stated that they woiild noc ~perate on Mondaye and Tuesdays and that if the need aros~ to change the tiours or days ~P operatiun that he had atipulated to. he would be happy to co~e hack befo~rr, rna Plaanin6 Commission. Thereupon, Mr. DamaCo stated thc~t the foregoing hours of on~.r3tic~n woul~ be satiafactory to him. In repl~+ to questioning by Co~isaioneX Compton, Of£ice ~ngi~ser Jay TiCUS ~dvised that the condition of approval regarding aidewalke s~ould remuin; howaver, ths petitioner could request in writing a temporary waiver f.rom the City Enginear if there was no i.mmediate u ~ ~ MINUT SS~ CITY k't,ANNINC C~IMMTSSI.pN, June 10, 197~+ CON~.[TIONAI.,.USE P.~MIT NO•_,1~ (~ontinued) 74••27 7 neei~l f.or the sid~walke~ und euch n~Nd ti'~•%u1d b~_ dn~e•:mined by the. City Engineer; and that thie procedu~re, if appr.ovad by thp L'ity Cn~ineer, woul~i iiot aff.ect Che prc~~ree~ of the prc,pose~l. Cc get underway by Augu~l 1.~ 1974. Mr, Tltur, furthur. advioed thaC thare wae a ehlnc.e that the Ci.ty Engineer would grant A temporury waiver of the siclowalk re~quiramenC; hcwe~rrr~ ±f the NiCuntion ahnul.d cher.ge and the sidewal.kss wf~ze noeJed in l•he nuar future~ '~~ City would have tlie toc~l to proceed. ~;oning Super.vieox Charlac~ RobarCs advieed the Comr.~iosion l•hat condi.tion of approval Nu. 6 a~+ eet farth fn Ch~ Stuf£ R~port, Khauld atate "Thot CondiCi.on Nos. 1. 3 and 4~ above~- mentioned~ et~~1.1 he comp.lied orith prior Co commencement of tha Activi.ty authurizod under thia r.eAOlution.'~ Il wae nc~t:ed that t-~e Director of Development Services hPd deterwined thak the propoBed ~ctivl.ty fell wi.thin tha definiClon ~[ SecCiun 3.01~ Clads 1 of the City of Anuhoim Cuide- lines to ~tie Roquirement~ for un ~nvirunmen~.al Impact R~p~rt and WAE~ th~rafore. cate- gorlcn.lly ex4mpt £rom th~ ~'eyuirement l•o ttle an EIR. Coma-iaeioner ComE~tc~h offered Resolur.ion P~o. PC74-125 and moved for lts paseage and adopCi~n to grunt Peti.tion Eor C.onditional L`ae Pa;rmit No. 1412, granCing the waivc;r of minimum n~+mber of parking spACCa on the basin that khe tiours ~f operat.ion for the proposed use would be at houra uther thatt the ragul.ar baeine~s haurd nf the oCher u~es o,t the sub~act locaCion; that the houre of aperatioo, for the propose~i uae sh~ll be from 3:30 p.m, to 7:30 p.m. on Wednesdays, 'th~xredays and rr.idays~ frou 10:00 a.4i. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and from 1:U0 p.m. tu 5:U0 p.m. on Sundays. with the wine-tssting classas being held during the t~ours af 7:00 p.~u. to 9:30 p.rr. on Thurodays and Friday~ and during their regular. bus•lne~s houra on Saturdays and ~~undays~ ae sCipulat~d to by the peCitioner; Chat a time limitat~on af two years ahall b~a granted for ttie uee of sub~ect pr.operty, and upon requeat by tha petitioner, an addiCional p~riod of time may be granted up~n approval by ehe Planning Commisai.on and/or Ci.ty Council; and sub~ect to conditione. (See Resolution Book) Qn rall call, the fo.regoing resolurion was pasaed by ~he following vote: AYF.S: COI~II~'lI3SI0NERS: COMPTON, HERBST, KING, MORLEY, GAUER NQL~S: COI~iISSIONERS: NONE ABSE~IT: COh44ISSI0NERS: FA,RANO, JOHNSON (:OPIlITIONAL US~ - PUBLIC HFARING. JOSEPH C. TRUXAW, 1244 Eianer Place, Maheim, Ca. PER:~IIT N0. 147U 92801, Owner; FRAIdK ROSE, 887 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, Ca. ~ 92805, Agent; requesking permisaion to ESTABT.TSH A BOARD AND GARE FACILITY FOR TREATMENT UF ALCOHOLTC~ on 7toperry describ~ad as: A r.ectangula.rly-shaped parcel oi lsnd consistin~ of ~pproximately 3C~,464 squar~ feet located aC the northwest corner of Anaheiu: Boulevard and Vermont Street, hating a frontage of approximaCely 108 feet on tlie weat eide ot Anaheim Boulevard, having a maximun depth of approxienately 284 feet, and b~tng ].ocaeed a~.; :oxima.teiy 45 feet west c~f the centerline of Anaheim Boulevard. Property preaenr' y clasaified C-1. GENERAL CO?~f~IERCIAI., ZUNF:. Two peraons indicated their presence in oppositlon to sub;jecL- petition. Asaistan*. 7,oning Supervisor Annika Santalahti read the StafE Report to the Planning Commiasion daCed June 10, 1974, and said St~ff Report ie re£erred to as if set forth in fu11 in the minute~. Mr. Frank dose, 322 New StreeC, Anaheim, appear.ed before the Cuurmisaion and stated the sub3ect facility was for persons who had become physically or paychologically eddicted to a~cohol; t~at those persons aometi.~se appeazed to be mentally disturbed but wesre not a.nd the facility offered a protective environmene; that the peuple returned to society ae decent human beinge and it would be a terrible thing to lose the fscility in Anaheim; that alcoholiam was the uumUer one he~slth problem and the number two killer; that the City had fonnd out about the facil~ty, which was rresently i:i operation, throu~h a potentital gcant of funds from the State of Cali.fornia; that the facility did not particularly want to accept the funds, tiowe~~er, rney did have Co accept them if Chey wiahed to etaY ~t Che aub~ect .location; thati the building wae in need of xegrair; tti:at thare were eight badrooma and three baChrooma ineide tt~e exi•;ting etructure, ~shich wF.s an eyesore; that no drunken peraona lived on Che premises; that he was speaking as a:. ae~wino and that he had played An important rale in the lives of many such persons in S~uthern California; thnt the resi- dentd at the subject facility were not a mena~e, however, thera was a liquor store on Vermont and drunks acrose the atr~et. ~ ~ MINU'fBS, CI1'Y 1'LANNING COMMISSIOI~, June 10. 1974 74-278 CONQITIUNAL USIs_,}.'BRMLT N0. 1G70 (Contiiwecl) As~~ociate Planner Phi111p Sch~;artxe notad th+~t a letter had b.~+n receivod in opposiCion from Mr. ~nd bira, ll:luir F.. Bnuer, indicating ehet with 30 to 35 men ].iving at the fnc~lity~ there wae a fire h~zard and a dangexous git~ation for r.he naighbare and ctiildren in the area. Mr. Rose e[ntod s:l~ere wore roughl~ 2U men living r-t the hnusc+ at the preAent tlmn; and that the facillty wr~o not for bof~rd and care, as the men were sober and ware n~~t lneane. THE PUI3LIC NF.ARIN~ WAS CLOSED. Commtesiuner Morley inquired what happened to the reRidenta if thcy drank, und Mr. Roso etatad there was a runch in HemeC and also facili.t~es in Cueta Maen and 5antn Ana fox t.hose persona. Mr. Fose '~urCher stated that npproximntely 30x of their r~esidentd came from St. .Jude's Hospi.tal; and tliat tt~ei~ f~cil.:ity hacl an advibory board coneigt:ing of a ,iudge and two physiciana, eCc. peputy City Attorney Frank I,owry advisEd the Commission tt~at Judg~: James Per.e~ of the tlorth Oronge Caunty Municipal Court was a member of the advlsory boar3, ae we11 ae two phyeici.ane, and they hud contacted him r.ogarding their. appl.ication £or funds. Mr. Lowry furthec staCed Chat if in the Planning Commiaeion's opini.on the proposal wae a dosirable u~e for the sub~ect area. the funde would b~: available; Chat the quebtiot~ bafore tho Commiesion was primarily that of land uee; that the board had unfArtunately choreen the wrong l.ocation £r~m a zoning atnndpoint, hnwever, khay w~uld make the conversion if the usa was permisolblE; and that the Stake woul.d inveatigate the fnci.lity prior to tfie funda Uetng granCed. Con~misaioner King inquired if tha men remained in the buildinga at all times, and Mr. Rose stated they had a play rend workout ares. He further that the Eacility'~ gr~aCeBk asest had been rehabilltation and they had not accepted any charity to thia timP. Coa~issioner King Chen noked thaC with the StaCe grant, the buitding could be renovated. ~ommisaioner Morley inquired if the ~tate would p].ace restrictione on the facllity 1E the funds were accepted, and Mr. Roae stated iC was claimed they would not, but everyone knew they would; that tlie State had a vast amount of federal funda to be placed in half-way hu~aes and if this L•acility did not accept the funds, said funda would be ~ut in other arear; however, the funds might destroy their purpoae. Commissioner Morley made an obaervation that tl~e petitioner would need the State grant in oxder to bring ti-a existing etructure into conformance with ~he Building Codes. In reply to questioning by Con~nissioner Kiag, Chief Bu3lding Inspector Dan Van Dorpe advised t'.lat the Building Division had made an inspection of th~ building and found that it was aubstandard and rFnuired c- lot of work in the construction including electrical and plumbing areas; that much of the buildimg wgs in v~olation o£ the Codes and it was rec•om- mended by Staff that whoever would be doing Che corrective work ahc~uld correct the existing violations prior co the granting of the subject conditional uae permit; that the work nec~seary to bring the aCr.ucture i.nto cowpliance with the Building Codea for a change in use would be Cremendous; and thst it Might be a~propriate to inquire if. the requeated canditionnl use ~ermit was needed tn oruer to obtain thE State granC. In reply to queatian_ng by Chairauin Gauer, Mr. Rose stmted the residents at the facllity had done the ~a~rk Chat preaently exieted. In reply to questioning by Commi.ssioner King, Mr. Lowry advised that the Sacramento office had indicated that the grant cou].d be enLirely procesasd within 90 days and tha funds made availab~~ by that period of ti.~e. Upon f.urther queationing by Commissioner King, Mr.. Ruse stated he had contacted a con- struction firm and givea tbem ~he list of items prepared b,y the City Building Division, and that the Stace funds would be allocated fcr the upgrading of the building ac-d for cerCain educational purposes. Mr. Rase then requested to be able to conCi.nue the opera- tian until the Stnta funde were available. to them. Mr. Lowry clarified that the facility would not be able to get the money from the Stste until they had the zoning matter reaolved; and that perhapa if the Flanning Co~niseion decided to grnr.t tt~e conditional use permit, it could be with ~ time limit in which to comply wiCh the Building Codes. ~ ~ ~ MINUT~S, CiTY PLANhINC COMMI3ST.UN, Juna .10, 1974 CONAITIONAL~ U5E P~Rr1IT N0.~0 (CnnCinuad) 74-27V In reply Co questioning by Commiseioner Horbst~ Mr. Vun Dorpe advleed that ttic+ Aullding pivislon had prepared a list frr ttie City Attorney':~ Office of thQ itoms that w~sr~ in vialnCion euch ae tlte urinale cannocCed diractly to ttie waeer aupply without an a~r gup. n water heater in th~ bauemwnt wltliuuC n vent~ and ot1~Fr iteme that wera hasardoUa conditione. He furthor udvieed if elio bullding waa for H-occupancy to allow 20 residenta f~:r!-l~or. inveetigati~n would be requir.ed end the Ulvieion wuuld recummend that the petf.tioner hi.ra a coneultant to tall him what lio would nead tu ~30. Mr. Roea indicaced CI-at he had obtnined a F~i.d for approximately $49.000 [o upgrade tt~Q structure; and that he pereonally felt Chat: they could not flnd a finar hol€-way h~u~~e einco L'k-e structure was a good one for the use. Commiasioner Compton inquired iE Ci~e property owner wae swar4 of thg situation regerding Che upgrading of the structuxcs, and Mr. Schwactze notAd for the Commis~ion ChaC thQ prop- erty owner had indicatpd to Steff thet he wae awarc and raas nut particularly inter.eated ln meeting Che ccnditions of approval and had indicated the reaponeibility would bQ that of the ugent in the mattar, hawever, tha praperty owner would allo~a the agenC to Uring the building up t~ (:ode. Mr. Schwnrtze indicated Chat he had not diecueaed the dedication condition with the property owndr although the pruperty owner wa~ aware of it~ and th~~re might be Qome oppoaition to the actual dedication baing made; however, the cc~ndition for dedication wuuld exiet and i.f i.t could not be coaiplled with, Ctie conditional use pe:~mit would obviou~Yy becoma null and void until something could be worked out betwoen tho agen[ and the property ownar; and that the properry owner had indicatad he did not see ~lny problem wiCh che u3e if the Flanning Commisaion felt it was vnlid. Mrs. Marie Bauer, 114 Midway Manor, Anaheim, appeared before the Cammieaion and etat~d her properCy abutted the sub~ecC property on the north; that ahe had not had any prob7.etas with the fac~l:lty until rather recently; thnt Che roen who came to the facility were not reaLly quite cured and needed med:lcal attention; that the men hid thair wine botC].es in khe alleyway, etc., and put their boCCles in paper a3cks and drank outaide as thay were not permitted to drink :Ln the houee; that tt~e ric Toc Marker. also oppoaed the subject cpPxatinn; that there were sp,e ,attreases that leaned on the block wall on the pr.operty line which loosened the wall; rhat tl~e men had becom~e angry and stated if her huaband ever put hia atm over the ~eace they would braak it o£f; that there was indeed more than 20 men at the facility; thaC aince the petition wae filed, the facility had done a good job of cleanir~g up the subJect property; that Lt would be nice if everything was on tne up-and-up buC ehe was too close to the property Co have a lialf-way house when the residents were not real.ly cured. Mr. Steve Wariirr appeared before the Crn~ission and stated he was the manager of the sub,ject faciLity; that a piecs of fiberglas leaned agatnst the fence that wae re:ferred to by Mrs. Bauer; that when the men s?ip,ed and were foui~d drinking, they were sent to Coata Mesa; that it was hard for an c~lc~hol.ic to stay aober aince Lhey were never cured pa~cho- logically and an alcohollc could not be cured by a ehot in the arm. In reply to questioni.ng by Chuirman Gauer, Mr. Warner etated the men held jobs durt.ng the day and had their meals and made rheir own lunches at the half-way houso. Cammiseioner Morley noted that Ctie haif-~aay house was for the alcoholic who wss out of the ~ospital but not really ready to raturn home to their families and when they finally did go home they had Co fa.^.e other pr'obleme; and he felt atrongly that the facility was a good thing. Comomiesioner Compton concutred in Commisaioner Morley's statementa but queaCionEd if the use was good at the suh~ect locatton and if the conditional uae were approved ~~ith a time limit would that conditlon interfere with the petitioner being able to obta~n the fi~nda diacusae3 earlier. Mr. Rone then stated that he felt if the houae was a detriment to the comwunity it ahould be done away with. Mra. Ba~ier Again appeared before the Cr,maiiseiu, and stated ahe would like to see paCience end underetanding on the part of the people at the aub~ect facility; that she would help in her way if they would help a little also; and that sho did not want her home to be depreciated since it was located on a beauCiful two-block etreet with 25 year old homea. ~ ~ MINIiTES ~ CITY 4~I.ANIJINC COMMISSIOPI, Juna L0, 1974 (:ONDITIONAI~ US~ PEItMI'I' NU. 1470 (Cantinuad) 74~280 Ii~ reply to queaCionirig by Connniseion~r CompCon, Mr. Ras~ indicated if t~he euh~ect petl.tion wore grnnted i'or a two-year period. at the end of wt~icti time it was ttot extended, it would bn up to thN bonrd af t2'UAC~86 to decide whe.:~ t1~ey wo~ild go from thsre; thut the subJect pr.operty wus aet up on n leaee-option for p~rchaee which was ae good as buying rhe l~uuee and it wo~~ld ba a shame to l.et th~ prop~arty gat away from thc~m; thal prior to ttie presnnt Eacil.ity~ another nu~n hud beon oporating a gimtlar i`acility at thc aubjecC locatian, and bir. Roae indicnted he took QveryChing l•hat wad c,n the property from the prc~vioua use Co the dump; th~t up to a year ngo there wae so muc:h ,~unk uround ~hat they hacl Co uae eeverzl dumpetere t~ hxul it ..way. In rep].y to quQetioning by Commis~ioner. Morley~ Mr. Wa:nEr stated thaC thd bue on the ~roperty wae operaUle. Iti reply to questioning by Commiaeioner (;omptUn, Che pc~titioner atipulatad that no one would ba ~llowed to live in or other.wise occupy the attic or basamen,t of Che building. In r~apanse to questioaing by C~mm:sa.toner King, Mr. Lowry advis~d that it would 3ppear to be rxcceptRble to grant the eub~ect petition for a periud of tiu~e and tlien if tho pc~titioner experienced difficulcy in obtnin~ng the gr.ant funde the m~tter nould he brought back before the Planning Comuniebion. 2t wae noted ChaC Che 1)irecCor of Development Services had determined Chat the propuaed nctivity fell within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1 of th~ Cit}• of Anaheim Guidelines to the Raouiremet~te £or ar.. Envir.onmental Impaat Report and was, therefore, categorically exempt From the requirement t4 file an EIR. Cammiesioner l;erbst of£ered Reaolutiou No. PC74-126 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petit.lon for CondiCional Use Permit No. 1470 based on the fore~oing findings and stipulationa by ttie pet.i.tioner rhat there ehn1Z be a maximum of 20 occupant~ at the faci].ity at any one ti.rne and nonP of th~ occupar~CS of tne faci].ity ahall occupy the attic or base- ment for l.iving, aleeping or other purposes; that this conditional use pexmit ie granted for a period of twa years tullowing which time upon requeat by the petitioner an additional period of time may be granted upon approval hy the Planning Commiseion and/or City Council; that the building ahu11 be broughx into full compliuncc with the Building Code~ for an H-occupancy, etc.; and c~ub~Qct to conditions. In reapon.se to questioning by Mr. Roberte, Comniasioner Herbet indicated his intent was ta gr.ant the sub~ect petition and al'low the uae to continue until the conditions were complled with. aince the petitioner did not liave funds at thia time. The Planning Commisaion entered into diacuesion with Staff regarding the tiwing eLement ror compliance with Ctie Code requirements and the posaibility of the facil.ity not being able to obtain the State grant snd conaequently be unable to c~~nform with the Building Codes, during which Mr. Vxn Dorpe indicated L•hat a three to six-month temporary extension of Cime would be reASOnable for the us~ to contin.~e i.n operation if they begar~ and com- pleted s~me of the items that we.re tn violation sooner than that. Thereupon Mr. RoberCs sug.^,eated that Cundition No. 5, aa aet forth in the Staff Report, be changed to read "That the existing atructure ahall be brought up to the minimum stand- arda of the Unif.orm Buil.ding, Plumbing, Electrical, Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codea as adopted by the City of Anaheim for an H-uccupancy, esid corrective work to be cflmmenced iromediately and comp~eted within 180 days; and that should correcC3ve work not be com- pletzd witi:in the aforementioned time achedule, the peCitioner may request t~n extension of time to do so and, upon approval by the Planning Commisaion anci/ot City Council, ar~ addltional p~eriod of time may be granted to complete thia condition." He further etated r.hat if the condition was not complied wir.h within the 180 3sys, Staff would report the status to the °l.anning Co~aiasion. C~,mmiesioner Herbat amended the fo:egoing reaolution of approval to incZude the changes to Condition No. 5 z~s recommended by StBff. (See Resolution Book) On r~ll call, the foregoing resolutian was passed by the following vote: AYES: COt~iISS'ION~RS: COMPTON, HERBST, KING, MORLEY, GAUER NOES: COI~fIS5sQIVERS: NONE ABSEtJT: COr4IISSIONERS: FARANO, .TOHNSON ~ ~ MTNUTES, CI7'Y PI.ANNING CUtYUfISSION, J~,nc 10, 1974 7G-2A1 VARIANCF: N0. 1605 - YUnLIC HF.AR~NC. JAMES P.tR~1I~ 1009 Dolphin Torrece~ Nawport 9each, Ca, ~^~ ~~" 92625, Owner; THF.Oll~RE J. TKACH, .1831 North Raymond~ Anaheim, Ca. p280~ ~ Agent; rwqu~eting WAIVEfc OF (A) PERMI'YTED U3I:S AND (D) MINIMIJM NUMBF.R OF PARKING S4~Ar,E~,~ TO A1.L~W THB CONTINUED OYEItATiON OF A DENTAL AND OPTYCAL SERVTC~ IN THE M-1.'LONE on prop~rCv descriUed ae: A rectiingu'larly~~hapad parcel of land coneiat- ing of upproximataly .59 r~cre locate~ at the aout}-west corner of Klmberly A~snue and Raymoad Aven~e, h~svin~ approximate fror~tagas of 2].4 feet on the south eid~ of Kimberly Avenue and 119 feeC on tna west sida of Rayaiond Avenue, ProperCy presently r..lnseified M-1~ LIGH'P INnU5'PRIN ~ 'LONB. No one ln~icated thai.c preaence in opposition to subject Petition. Although the Staff Tcaport to the Plannir.q Commisaion da~c~d June 10, 1~7G waa not read ut the public liearini5+ ~t ie referr~sd to and mnde a part of the minutes. Ur. Theodore J. 'Ckach, thF petitianer~ uppeared before the Commigsi.ou and eCated during L•he publia heari.ng for Variance No, 190b in 1y67, he recalled Ck~are was some discuesion regarding Che dental usage~ THE PUAI.IC HEAkING WAS CI pSEU. In response to questioning by Comtai9eioc-~r Herbat, Dr. Tkach atated ther: wae vacnnt r~om in the subjec:t buildln~ r~s thP optical leboratory and unother Iaboratory ware no longer tl~ere; that at one time thare were four partners snd presently Chere were. Cwo parCnera; and that thc sp~ce was the sume. Commission~ar HerbaC noted that the proposal appeared to need more parking spaae~ and the petitioner atat~d the dental aervice staggered their haur~+ w~th the opticul service; that parki.ng wras noC real.ly a probZem as there was a loi of par.k~ing per patient anr~ the services were noC for the general public but were for groupa. Commiseicner Herbst Chen noted that Che area was primaril,y indu~ ~1 and a` would not appear 4o be xuitable for the pr.-posed operation, and the petii r statad ~uat the operation had been at the sub~ect location for five or ~ix yeu..,.snd was a lar.ge group practi+:e with four dentists. Commii3sioner Herbet inqufred why Lhe petitioner did not choo~e a courmercial location and Dr. Tkach stated tha,t he was noC the origin~l owner; that the original t~ao partners sold out Co four parCne•rs und prPSently there were two partners; ttaat he was not awaze of tl~e variance for the uae until the renewal of the busineas licenae i:~. 1974 and that was why he was before the Commiasion at this time. Chr•iirA,an ~s~uer noted for the petitioner that tlle Coarmission was concerned that khe use might expand, and Ar. Tkach stated not in dental; that there wae vacant space for optical and they were deairous of keeping the space quota the ~ame as it had been. In reaponse Co queationing by Cammiseioner Merley, Dr. Tkach stated that Saturday was a I~usy day for these servicea. 14r. Jamea Emmi~ the property owner, appeared before [he COII~1~R9j.011 and stated thaC the original idea was to uae an indusirial bvilding where the renta would be low; thut the lena gxinding operaCion proved to be ~neconoml.cal due to tha volume and that operetion was reduced to nominal ,;'asa-fitting work only; that the design was tu incorporate the dental fox the same type aervi.ce to groupa and they ha~t attained a building permit to aet up additianal offi.ces; tllat he. understood that the origi:~al vsrianca was approved to permit the dental o~erati-on and he was surpriaed that the matter was being recc+nsidered by the Planning Coacoisaion; and that he had received a copy of the le~al notice in the mail. wh~ch brought fC to hia attenL'ion. He iurther atated that Dr, Hahn whu occupied space in the opti~al portion of the building predently had his busineas license and did not feel he needed to be a paxty to the sub~ect petitioci; that the off-houre for the optical and dental servicPS were staggered f.or parking reasone and the type of aervice Chat was nffered ~aaa keyed to off-houra and Satu~days for the w~orking people who wese unable Cc+ k~ep appoint- ments dnring the wQek. In reapanae to queationing by Coumnissioaer King, Mr. E~i stated that Dr. Hahn was re~ponei- ble for the entire lear~a and whether the ent:re space wae used or not the lease atill had to be p~id. Mr. ~mmi further ata~ that they would nut be expandiiig into the vacant apace. ~ ~ MINUTES, CIT1f 1'f.ANNI.NG COt~1ISSI0N, June J.O, .197!- ~h'2$2 VAR~ANCF N0. 7_605 (Cuntinued) 7.oning Supervleor Char?cse Ttoberte rc ~i.r_wed the conditiond uf approval ae set forth in the StaFt~ Rc~port aud disciiedion pureusd xegarding the far.t ChuC the Sunitation Uivieion h+~d lndicuted the Craeh faci.l.il•y wae not t-p to el•andarde~ und Mr. Emmi sCated a tradli etoraga nrun lie~d beon provid~d; t:hat ehQ requi.remant for eidewul.ke had been walved ~hen tha build- i.ng wno conntrucCed and it did not nppear tl~ut n nQed for tho sidewa.lke exi~t~d ut tl~e present lf.mc~; aad ~hat thc~ nr~n in ftor~C of the building wae preeently planted wf.th greun~ry. 'it waK uoCed CI~nC ths Diractor of Uavelopment Sexvicae had deCermined that ~ha propoeed activity tell wi.ehi.n th~ ciefinitia~~ of Secti.on 3.01~ Clnse 1 of tlics City of Anaheim Guic'!elinee tc ;:he Requirem~~nte for an Envi.ronmental. Impact Report and wae, the°efore, catNguricuJ.ly exempt irom Cha roquiretnettt to file ar~ EIR. Cn~mniseloner 'f~erbRt of.ferad R~c~olution Na. ~'C74-127 and mov~d for its p~seage and ad~~ption to grunt YQtJ.tlon for `larianco No. 2605, grnnting waiver ot permittad uees in tha M-1 Zone on the bneie rhat tha uee haa bQan in exietence far a period of time and is induetri.ally- orlented to a degr~e; granting wai.ver of mii~imum number af parkinp, epacc~e on tha baels thut tha houra of uperation for the proposed use are atnggered and also would ba at hours other than the ~eg~llar buainesa houre of the otY-er us~R at the subject 1uc~ttion; and sub~ect to the condition th8t u ti.me limitation nf two yeare ahall be granted for tt~e use~ of HubjecC property and upon request by tho peCitionec, un ~dditional period o£ timo may be grunted upon approval by the Planning Coaanisaian and/or CiCy Council; and aub~ect to canditicns. (See Resolution 9ook) On roll cFi].1, the fore~oln$ reeolutian was pnsaed by the following vote: AYES: COI~tISSIONERS: CflI~'TON, HERBS'T, KT*?G, MORLEY~ GAUER NOES: C01~4~tISSIUN~RS: P10NE ABSENT: CVrQYlISSIONL~RS: ~ARANO, .TOHNSON VARIANCI's N0. 2609 •° PUTiLIC HEARING. DOUGLAS OIL COMPAItY~ P. 0. Box 2500, G~tR Mesa, Ca. 92626, Owner; WTLLIAM R. WOOD, 17905 Sky Park Boulevard, SLiee "P", Irvine, Ca. 92707, Agent; requesti.ng WAIVER OI' (A) I~fA}CIMUM BUILDING HEIGH'~~ (B) MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIR~v PA121CING SPACES, (C) ,lINIMUM PARKING AREE1 LANDSCAPING AD3ACEN'P TO RESIDGNTIAL 70NE, TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-5TORY CUbQ~RCI.AL OFEICE BUILDING on prupetty described as: A rectangularly-~shaped parcel of land conaisting of appxoximxtely 14,000 square ieet located at the northweaC corner of Magnolia Street +~~id Ball Road, having approximate fron*_agea of 80 feet on the narth eide of Ball Road s~nd 180 feet on the weaC aide of Magnoli.a Street, ~nd hav3ng a maximum depth of approximately 1b0 feet. Propert;~ presently clasaified C-1, GENEPAL C01~4tFRCIAL, ZONE. Na one ind"~ated their presence in oppo:'tiion to sub~ect petition. Although the Staff Report to the Planning Gom~:asion dated June 10, 1974 was not read at Che public hearing, it is referred, to and made a part of the minutes. rtr. Derrick White, 4242 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, representing the proiect en~ineer, appeared beFore the Coromissiol and stated the purpose of tf~ proposal was to make use of ~ vacant service sCation site ici a mxnner that would hopefully be good for the co~uniCy and a Eavornble evolt~tion toward removiug aome of the bli.ghe cauaed by Che vacant site; that thexe were many such aitea in Ctie City; that as a general rule the sites were odd-shapsd and a developer was f.aced with unuaual problema in trying tu develop them with oth~r thar. a~rive-thru type operation such as food~ drycleanera, dairies, etc.; that they were hoping to construct a small garden-type office building and i.n order to do 9o they would require the waivers being requested; that the proposal would set a precedent for other similar aite: to be developed in the City; and that he realized the parcel was destined to be commercial hu; iioped the variances could b~ worked oat favorably. THE PUBLIC ti..Af:ING WAS CLOSFT . In responae to questioning by Commissioner Herbet, Mr. White etated the type usPs might include a real eatare office or a lawyer's office and khere might be 11 offices altogether. Commissioner Herbst noted rhat with aome usea, the pr~ricirg 3tandarda would be conpl.etely overran. such as ~ dactor's offi.ce, and Mz. White stated dcctors ur,~ ~ly wanted to be close to their hoepitals and further that a ductor's ofiice Would require a waiting ~ ~ ~ M1.NUTBS~ Cx'L'Y P1.ANNIN('. CUMMISSloN, .Iune 10, 197~; V,A~~ANCE N0. 260q (ConCinu~d) 74-289 room cr holding uffic4 nnd ada~rionaL plurobing~ thoYefore~ the type office thoy were Ncopcsing woulcl ~iot be auiCabl.: for a doctor~ and~ tliereupon~ lir. White stipulated thut nona uf tlie o~fice epace wr~u].J be used b} a doctor. (:omml8eioner Herbet inquir~~~l if tha pet itinner c~uld resolve tl~a 150-foot requirement from r.he ad~oinlnq reeidential. propArty which would eet u precedenC ae proposed ~~nd Mr, Whir.e etntoJ thi.u wae one of. their gteatesc probleme due to the ai~e of the the Zat And tho minimal eCructure that was already propoead; l•hat Chey wanted the gard4n-type unit ao that tlic~ oeructure could be looked througt~ ui~darneetl~; cliat they wiet~ad ta construct somethinA thaC would be pleaai.ng to the eye innsmuch aB it ~ould be an axposed arex on the cornor; l•hat Choy aunted aome landscapin~ und thoy would be cotnpelled to put Aome at Che parki~~g epacee undarneatti th~ reAr porti~n of the building. Commi~~lun^r HezbaC noted fur the Commiseion that ha riaalized a great ~ob had been clono with tl~e eubiect eite; howevcr~ the protocti.on Co the ~'eeidentlal area wus being eacri- £iced and thie would be aettit~g a pY~QC~:dent~ and Mr, Wl~ita ~tated that the proposed structure would have no windowa on the rear since he did not want the teiiante .:o be ebi.e C~ ]~ook i.nta the bnck yarda of rhe residential propertiae; and that there would be r~ parking lot between the proposad ~tructure and the resiclc~ntiul pr.operty linee. In respunee ko quest•Loning by ~ommisaianpr Murley, Mr. White etipulatPd tt~ey would have no ohjection to planting a tree acreen on the north property line; and he further atated he did underetand thore was to be a 20-fo~t landscaped area at the north properCy line. Commissioner Kin$ inquired concerning ~he locatian For the traeh gtorr,~ area~ and Mr. White stated it could ba plsced underneath the b~~.ilding end out of view to the general public or any othet location which would be requlred bV xhe Sanitation Divieion, In response Co comment by Commisei.oner Compton that the waivera would be aettinq a prece- dent and the p•~rking might not be sufficient, Mr. White statr_d thaC the pzopoAal would be opening the door for a much bettar use than had ex~etud on khis type pr.operty praviously and he ur.deratood Che cancerne regarding the parking but whether it would be adequaka was u~udgment or matter of opinion. Zoning Supervisor Gharles Roberts n~red for tt-e Commiseion that he did not kn~~r of another insCance where similar waivers were dranted. Comonieaioner Herbst questiouad L'he turning 'radius for thQ underneaCh parking, and Mr. White ataGed the stalls were 9.5 feet wide; that the care did not have to !;o oa.zt the way they came in and he could relocate the trash storage area nnJ also provid~~ a~screeu wail off Rall Road to acreen the parking £rom the cars pasaing» Comm'_saioner Herbet then noted that tl--e petitivner had Caken under cnna~deraCion every- thing that had been diacueaed regarding ~xpoaure to tlie residential ~ropertiea and had nothi:~g expoaed in r_he rear, however, he could not vouch for the die}~osition uf th~ fence later on, and Mr. Wtiite stipulated tl~s;, bumper atripe could be inr~ta:lled _ Commisaioner King inquired if the area wae a p~tentia.l bu9inesa area, an~d Commisaioner Herbat noted that ttiere were presently res~!dences adi~~~ning the subj~act property and the Commiseion had neve~: approved the 150-foot variance in that respect. Mr. White indicated thaC the property to the rear af thc~ sub~ect property had exten~3lve ].an~lECSping with mature trees along the bnck af the wall; that in all prabability the adjoining propertv owners would not fcel the proposal would be detrimental tu their property, and '~e ~~ould aot want it to be. Commiseioner tdorley noted for the Commiseion theC the homes to the west of the eub~ect p-operty w~r° acreened wixh trees that were at leAeC 25 feet high and Co~mn~seinn.~r King noted thr.t the only criticism or complaint woulcl be from the penple to tche north. Mx. Whit~ etated that eome time ago Area Development Plan No. 56 waF~ prepared by the City that anticipated tt~e entire block would be commercial. a~ some futurE~ ti~e, and in all probability~ the owner of the parcel to the north wae anticipating c:onverting i~ to co~nercial i.n the t-ear future, however, thie wae purEi ~onjectur,: on h3s p~rt. ~ ~ ~ MINU'CF.S, C'~TY P1,A.NNINC COl~P1iSSTON, June 10, 1974 74-284 VARIANCE; ~1Q. 2b09 (Cot~tinued) Commiseionar, l~c~rbet netpd Chat he wos nc~t i.n favor of granting the 1S0-f~ot weJ.ver and the parkin~ waiver ei.nce t:~a ~~Qaoon the park~ng waivRr wne nneded wae duo Co tt~e violation ot tl» 15(1-foot reyuiroment; and thet '~.1.K n~BOCVBC~U[I would b~ that thero wete toa mucti build- ing f.or the dite. Mx, Whit~ etated LP thay :emoved 1000 syuure feet fr.om tha pro;~eck it w~~uld not be oconomical on a x'entnl beaie and would be a marginnl pru~ecC; that I~e clid not hava much further to e+~y except Chat they waro Crying to bui13 a handaoma bU~.S.fILilB~ hida Che parking stalle and with no expoeure ir~ the rear. etc. Commissi.oner Compton than not~d that quite poselbly the peCitioner wae pa,ying too miich for the land; and that he would vote agai.nst tiie praposal, ae preeenr.ed. There~ipon~ Mr. Whi.te requested a continuanc~~ r.~ poesibly revise the plans nnd sCat~J the Planning ~o~lAeion hnd bean very leniFnt in Lryt.ng Co work ou-: Cho pxobl~~ma he was encountering. Conwiseioner Compton oii~:red a moti.on, aeconded by ~ommiesloner Morley and MO'PiON CARRIL~D (Commiasioner.s Farano and Johnson ~.eing abeent)~ C~~ r.eopen thc~ public hearing and conCinue crosideration of Pat'tion Eor Variance No. 2609 r~ the meetir.g of luly 8. 1974, as requeated by Che pe!i l.oner. RECESS - C+~airman Guuer dec~urad a recesa at 7:?.5 p.ID. RECONVENE - Chairman Gauer reconvened the meeting ak 7:30 p.m., with Commisaioners Farano and Johnson befng absent. ENVIR~NMENTAI~ IMPACT - Proparty ].ocated ou the south aide of Nohl Ran<:h Roud nppruxi- R;PORT N0. 127 mately 400 feet east of Royal Oak Road - Requ~tat for cer t.ifica- - r.ion ~f the EIR in connection with an extenoio~i of time f or development of Tentative Tract Nos. S1).5, 8116, 8117 and 8137 cumpriaed of 260 si.ngre-family homeR on a eite ~f 106 acres ~onad R-H-10~000. Lt was noted that Er~vironmecital Impact Repor.t No. 127 was aupplemental t~~ and by refer- ence uiade a part of EIR No. 80 which covered the entire hnaheim iiill~ Planned Cu~unity of appraximately 4200 acres and ~as ador,ted by the Anaheim City Cout~cit as ita Environ- mental Impact 5tntement on May 'l?, 19' nnd that sub~ect Report was al.~o supplemental to and by reference made a part of E :10. 12 which was adopted by the Ci.ty Counc il f or the subjecC pro~ect on June 26, 1973; and, further, [hat the subject Report wa3 s ub- mitted in order to incor.porate information concerning the impact on scY~ools and a soil and geologic investigatlon which ;aas nat available at the time the ori~;inal EIR wae prepared, and other information has been rewritten and reorganized so a.s to prov ide a more comprehenaive document to meet present atandards. Commieaioner King offered a motton, seconded by Cnmanissioner Herbst and. MOTION CARRIED (Cummisaioner~ Farai-o and Johnson being abeent)~ that Gnvtronmental ImF~act Repor t No. 11.7, aupplementing Master EiR Nus. 12 and 80, having been coneidered this date b y the City Piani~ing Commiasion and written evidence having been preaented to auppl.emen t eaid draft ELR No. 12;, the Planning Commiasion '~eli.evea that said dra£C EIIt No. 127 does conform to the City and State Guidelines and the State of California Etivironment al Quality Act .~nd, based upon auch information~ doas hereby recommend to the CiCy Council l•hat they certify said EIR No. 127 is in compliance with said Environmental Qual ity Act. EIv'VIRONM~'..NTAL IMPACT - Property located beCween ~speranza Road and the future exteneion REPORT N0. 228 ~f La i'almx Avenue approximaLely 1.5 miles Past of Imperial - ~~ Highway - RFqueet for certification of the EIR in conne ction with an axtension of time for development of Tentative Tract No. 7422~ a r.esidential project coneisting of 87 si~ngle-family homes zoned 1t5-5000 on z site of approximately 16.8 acrea. Mr. J~ck Hall, repreaenting Hall & k'oreman, Inc. , preparer of the sub,jecr. EIR f or Maurer Development C~mpany, appeared bef.ore the Planning Com~issian and atated that th e submitted EIR included a etaCemenY that the develop~er would retain an acoustical engineer and provide • ~.. e MINU'PF.S, CI'PY PI.ANNYNG CON4~IISSIUN~ Juna lU~ ]y7A L~NVIXQNMENTAL II~I~CT REI!URT NU, 128 (Continued) 74-2E~5 odditional inform~ttion to the CiCy, and Char ChQ u~nginoar.'a reao~muendaCiony would be strlctly adhered to to cartify thQ nui.Ae levcsl genaratpd by the train trafFic to 4S dBA inai.de Cho homQe wiCh windaws and doore cl~ssd. Mr, tlall rioted that on Merch 5, 1974~ the devalup~r. re~;uedted nn exteneion of ~im~ £or dave~lopmont of Tentatlva Txact N~. 7422 and the City Council grented tlia raquest to expire March 77~ 1975 euh~ect ro a requirement that nn L~IR on the pr~ject be npprove.d within 90 d~ys; that n~yw khe Stnff. wae requiring additionul inEorn-ation; and CheC the daveloper wae r.equestinq co be a].lowad to Aubmit the additinnal i.nformation fit the time the f•inal map on r.lie ~ubject tontaCive track was eub- mitt~d~ Ha further noted thar other t~d~ncant subdivieione had t.he ~~ame sound pr.obleme and were allowc~d to do ae the developer wae auggesti.ng. Commiseionar Herbst noto~t fox~ M~. Hull thak tha Commiesion weA in~arested ta know how the sound attenuation would b3 provided, and Mr. Flall ataC~d the aound sttenuation of Chp Uuilclings was a rela~ively simpl.e mutCer; howevot', with a ruilroad track 10 to 1.5 f~~et higher thttn the sub~ac:t properCy and with lots 120 feet deep~ the c.ondition wae hard to live w1th. Commiesioner Herbat noCad thaC tha siCuaeion was not a good living environmenh. due to the noise nnd that the Comiuiaeton wxntad an explanation of how the homes woii].d be pr.otectad~ i. e. , doubls-paned windows. eCc. Mr. Hal? stated thaC the recommended 65 dBA in the yarde when a train went by~ would bc next to impos~ib].e, al~nough wikhi.n ttie buildings it wtis rel+~tively eaey to do~ Deputy City Attorney 'rank Lowry advised that the Superior Court roquired that the miti- gating measures eith be explained in khe ~IR-'e or an tiidicatlon be made that a cond~tion could not be mitiated. Commissioner Morley offered a motion, acco;~dad by Commisaioner Cowpton an<i MOTION CARR(CD (Commissioners Farano and Johnson being abetnt), that Environment~l Impact Raport No. 128, having been considered this date by the (.!ty 1'.lanni.ng Commiseion and evidenca bot.h written and oral having been preeenked to supplement said drr-ft EI.R No. 128, the City Planning Cammiseion believes that said draft EIR No. 128 3oes not conform to the City and State Guidelines and the State ~r Californi~a Environmental Qva]ity AcC and that £urCher infor- matiun about the noiae enviranment miti~ation mer~surer~ be siabmi[ted and consider.ed prior to certifica~ion of said EtR No. 128 by the c.i.ty coun~i.l. REQUEST FUR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT R~F~RT NFGATT_VE DECL~AR~-TT_ON - CITY Or FULLERTON LA PALMA PUMP STATI0~1 _ _~... Zoning Supervisor ~harles Roberts presentPd the rec~uesC fr~ .r~ Ckce C3Cy of Fullerton ~ Environmental Impaat Report Negativc DQU1~raCiu~, in cun;~:~~cton wiih their a 1Lcation r.. the City of Anaheim Utilitiea Division iur a pc:.mit to drili a~~.r' 1 and to ^~don two existing wella a~ the '.,a Palnta Pump Station locat~d at 1.029 North Hart~r Bo,:'..~ vaxd. Lt wa~ aoted that Che U~.ilities Division had rrviewed the R+.u~ect k~roject and determined t'~,ar *.;~~r~ would be no s: gnificant environmeutal i.npect, ainc~ Cr,e capa^.ity of the new ~~+e1.1 w~uld be less than the combtned capacity o.f the wells whic;~ were t~~ be abandoned and the woz'~ wou.~d be perforared ~in compliance with art appl.ic~~t,le r.egulation<<. Ccromiseioner i:l:~g offered a motion, seconded by Commis~si~ner. Herbat and M01~ON CARRIRD (C~~mroisnioners Farano and Johnaon being absent). that the Planning Commissioi; recoa~euda to the e.~CV Councl~l that Che aub~ect pro~ect be eaempt iroe~ the requirement to vrepare an Environmental Impact Report purs~ant to the prov.isions of the Californiu Environtiental Quality Ac t . ~ ~ MINUTES ~ CITY PLANNINC COb4~iIS5I0N ~ J'unn 10. 1974 i 4-286 ItFPORTS ANU - ITF.M NO _,1 R~COMMENDATIONS CARAGF. SG~TBACKS ANU FAItKING STIINUARDS - One-F~mily Reeidontial Zonas The StAff Repoc•t Co the Ylanning Co~niesian d+it~sd .luna 1.0, 197/i. diecuseing the pub~ect matter wus preoented to tho Flanning ConanisAiun. Commi~eioner King off~red a motion, e~conded Uy Commtanion~r lierbst and MOTION CARRIF.ll (Cu~ise:lonere Farano and ,lohnson being aUsenG), Co sat fur public h~ering on June 24~ 7.974. conuldAration of Amnndment to Ti.tle 18~ Cha~ter 18.28~ lt-2, Multiple-Faroily Residat~tial~ Zonn, SecCion 18.28.05~, Sil:e Ucsvelopmant Standatds, Subsectiun (10) Off- Street Park'ing RequlremonCe. iTEM N0. 2 CONDITIONN. USE PFItMIT N0. 133b ltequcet for approval o£ ti-foot t~igh eolid maeonry wall. in front aetback and also request for clarification of i.ntent o; Cade requir~menta - Property located At the ooutheasl- corner of State C.ollage Boulevard and Wagner Avenue, zoned R-2 Rncl developed with an 85-unit plam~ed residenti.al de'velopment. The uubject item was takan off the calendar of thia maeting at the requesC of Staff. ITEM NU. 3 CONDITIONAI, US~ PERMIT N0. 1193 - Clarification of permitted uses - Property located ar. the southeast corner of Wsgner Avenue and State College Bo~ilevard and developed wlth the Anaheim Meth~diat Church 2n the R-A Zone. Commisaioner Compton noted for the Planning Cammission that he had a po~taible conflicr_ n~ intereat and he was hereby declaring to rhP Chairman that he wan withdrawing from the heRring in cannecti.on with the sub~ect item and would not take part in etther Che dia- cusdion or khe voting thec~eon; and that he h~d not discus~ed this matter with any member of Ctie Planning Cor,~~ission. lhereupon, C~I~iISSIONER COMPTON LGFT T1~E COUNCIL CHAMB~R AT 7:45 P.M. Asaociate Planner Phallip SchwarCZe not.ed that the petitianers, Anaheim United MaChodiat' Church and North Orange COLllltu School Diatrict`e Regional. Occuparional Yrogratn, were requesting permission to c=nduct "Region~l. Occupational Program" classes for high schflol and adult s!:udents in landacaping~ ground maintenance and greenhouse opergxio•n along Ch~ southern portion of the subJect property; and said clasRee would be atCended by approxi- mately 30 atudents divided into two groupa between the houra of 1:Q0 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, however, during the ou~nsr monthe, the clasaes would be held from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon for aprroximately 30 aCudents. The agreeme»t for thQ proposed program coould be effecCive reCroactive to October 1973 IItld cantinue khrough June 1975, and upon Cerminatton of the agreement Che Regional Occupatioual Program would ren-ove the proposed ahade house, sprinkler syeCem and all other R.O,P. facilities from the aite. Cocam~saioner King offered a motion, aeconded by Commiesioner Morl.ey and MOTION CAItRIEll (Commiasioners Compton, Farano snd Johnson being abaent), that the Planning Cotanin~ion hereby finda and de~et-~nines that Che "Regional Occupa[ionql Pzogram," as presented, is in conformxnce with the permitted uses and intent as originally approved for Conditional Use Permit No. 1193. CONQdISSIONGR COMPTOIv RF.-ENTLRED THE COUNCIL CNAMBER AT 7:50 P.M. ~ s MINUTF9, C7TY kLANNTNG COI~lISSION~ June 10~ 1974 l~i'28~ [tEPON,T3 AND - IT~M N0. 4 R~CAA4Q:NllATIONS CONUITLONAi. USG P~EtMIT N0. 1463 - Raquae~ t~ -~ rol.ocaCe u 6-foot tiigh ~ence f.rom the north- easterly pruperty ].ina to Che curb llne of Mabla Street - Property locat:ad nt 1524 West Mable Street. 'rha £taff ReporC to th~a ~lanni.ng Commiseion dated June 10~ 197~i, was prasc~nted. The Pl9nning Coimaiaeton Pntrred into diecuesion reg~rding the e~.-b~ect requeat~ following which Cummiesioner King offered a motiun, e~cunded by Commiaeionc~r Morley and MOTION CARRIED (Commieaionors Farano and Johneun baing nhAent), to continua t1~e roquesC to the meeting of June 24, 1974, in order thet tho applicant could he prasant to answer qu~stione. ITEM N0. S VARIANCE N0. 2572 -• Request for clarificati.an of R~solution No. PC74-S approving, in pnrt~ VaxSunce Na. 2572, permitling expaneion of an existing nonc:onforming building - Property locat~ed ar 2IQ0 Wedt nall Road on th~ ~outhwuet corner of Ball. Road and Empire Straet. The Staff Iteport to the Plunning CommisRion dated June 10, 1974, wus pxesented. The eub~ect icsm was taken off the calendar of tt~io meeting ~t ttte requPSt af the Deputy City Attorney Fzank Lowry~ to b~ resclieduled following final inspection of the bui.lding on the aub~eet propPrty. ITGM N0. 6 RECLASSIFICATION N0. '73-74-56, TRACT N0. 8533 - Proposed condition of approval concerning maintenance of alo~,e landscaping. The Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated June 1.0, 1974, was presented. The aub,jecr item wae taken off the calendar ~f thi.a meeting at the request of Str~'f. ITEM N0. 7 COUNTY OF ORANGE CONDITIONAL YERMIT N~. 1516 - Re~uest to establish a recreational vehicle storage yard and caretaker's mobilehome - ProperCy located approximately Z80 f.eet norCh of La Pa].ma Avenue. having a ~rontage ot approximately 218 feet on the weat side of Lakev3ew Avenue and 'naving a maximum depth of approximat~ly 717 feet, said praperty befn~ presenCly classifiPd County M1 with a reaolution of intent to City of Anaheim M-1 zn,d Che Scenic Corridor (SC) l?verlay Zone. Zoning Supervis~r Charles Roherts preaenzed notification of public h~aring to cunsider the aub~ect C~nditional Percnit by the County of Orange Planning Cormnisaian and noted that an identical proposal for the aub~ect ~Sroperty was considered ia puUlic hearing by the Maheim City Plrznnieg Coauniasian on Nave~*',~er 26, 1973 and was denisd. Cummiasioner Morley offered A motion, seconded by Co~iasioner Compton and MOTION CARRIED (Commiseionera Faran~ and Johnaon being absent), that SCaff be and hereby ie ~' directed to forwar;: a aetter to the Orange County Plannin~ Commiasian reaffix~aing the `• y Anaheim Planning Commieeion~e previoue action af November 26, 1~73 concerning the ~ suhject property. Commiaeioner He ~•t noted ~hat additianally the P1annl.ng Commisai.on ahould reco~end tn the Anaheim C:ty Cauncil that shou].d the County of Orange take affirmat3ve action on the Conditional Permit No, 1516~ that City of Anaheim ulilities not eervice the property. Thereupon, Commis:~ioner Morley included Commiea{oner Herbst'e stateanent in the fore- going motion9 and MOTION CARRIED (Coamisaioners Farano and Johnaon being absent). .,... ~ ~ ~ NINUTES ~ CZTY P1.MINING COt~4t183I0N ~ Jun~ .1.0 ~ 197G >~'~ag ADJOU[tNMENT ~ There being no furthax bu~~naas to diecu~a, Caaaa~.Aeiun~ax~ Morley --~`- oPfmr~d a motion to ad~ourn the mAnL•ing. (Com-niASi.~ner ~amp~an eeconded thN mntion. MOT10N CARRiRD. 'The m~~ting ad~ourn~d ul• ~:55 r»m• fteepecttul.ly nubmi.eCad, a~..~:~-~ /~ ~-~'~"~ ~~ Pntricia 8~ Scanle.n, 3e,cretory Aciahel.m Cily Planning Conuuisaion PH3:hm