The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1977/05/23wr ,~ ~+~ •r ctCy Hati AnahPim~ California May 23. 1977 REGULAR MEETING UF THE ANANEI~1 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 77-338 REGUTAR - A regular mecting of the Anaheim City Planning Commtssion was called to MEETING ord~r by Vicc Chairman tolar at 1:35 p.m., May 23, 1977, in the Counci) Chambers~ a quorum bein~ present. PRESENT - VICE CHAIRMAN TOLAR COMMISSIONERS: DAVIU, KING~ HERE3ST, LINN and Commissioner Rarnes en~ered Chambr.r at l:45 p.m. ABSEMT - CHAIRMAN JOHNSON ALSO PRESENT- Frank Lowry Assistant City Attorney AnniE:a Santalahti Assistant Plannin~ Dir~ct~r-Znnin~ Paul Sl~yer Traffic Enginser Jay Titus Office Engineer Joel Fick Associate Planner J. J. Tashiro Assistant Planner Pamela Santala Planning Department Secretary Edlth Harris Planning Commission Secretary PLEOGE OF Conunissioner Hcrbst led th~ Pledye of Allegiance to the Flag of ALLEGIANCE the Unitcd States of America INTRODUCTIONS - Chairman Tolar intr~oduced new Planning Commissioner Robert A. Linn ^and Planning Commissian Secretary Edith hlarris. APPROVAL "~ Commissioner Herbst offered a motiun, seconded by Commissioner David NINUTES and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lin~ ~bstaining and Chairman Johnson ~~~ absent), for approval of the minutes of thP April 25 and A~ril II. 1977 meetings as submitted. APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY Commissi~ner David ~~ffered a motion appointing Ed'+th Harris a~ Planning Commission Secr~~,•~~, secor.ded by C~mmissioner King, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Barnes not ~~•'esent and Chairman Jnhn~nn absent). AGENDA ITEM 1 CONTINUED. Owners: L. Kennech Heuler~ eta1, 906 EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION Pioneer Drive, Anaheim, C,^, 92$OS and California RECLASSIF!CA710N N0. 76-77-54 Towel and Linen S~;pply Company, 710 W. 58th St., - Las Angeles~ CA 90037. AGENT: Frost Construction Co.~ 707-K S. State College Blvd., Fullerton, Cp 9~631. Subject property consisting af approx3mately 5•18 acres, having a frontage of a'~:~~oxirtwtely 428 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue. having a maximum dep~„ oF approximately 527 feet, and being located approximately 419 feet east of the cent.°rline of Euclid Street. Reques't for reclassificatton from RS-A-43,000 (Residenti~l/Agricultural) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family)Zone. 5/23/71 r .~ . t MINUTES, ANANEIM CI1'Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 23, 1977 77-339 E,R ~EG. DEC. AND aECLASSIFICATION N0. 76-77-5~ ~Continued) 7en pcrsons indiceted op~osttion to this r~quest end waived the reading raf the Staff Report whlch is reFerred to ar~d made a part of the minutes, David Frear, 707 S. Stete College~ Fullerton, Frost Construction~ pres~nted the redes~gned plans pointing out that suggestions made by the Cortvnission at the previous meet(ng had been incorparaced. 1) at the suyyestion of the City Tr~-fflc Department~ al(gned driveway with Dresden Street and two left turn pockets were added, onc to cast entry of project and oneturning onto Dr~sden; 2) rearranged parking to eliminate hazard; 3) added 20 ft. landscaped median adjacent to single family homes; and 4) 155 fert to the twa story bulldiny. Mr, Frear stated a limited efforC had been made to contact property owners. Jerry Bushore, 1617 W. La Palm AvEnue, Anahelm~ scated he had first heard ~-~boul the h~~ring at 19:~Q and wAS concerned that na natice had been sent to him and wanted more time to study the plans. He was mainly c~ncerned abaut the trafflc, reta[ing pas[ problems. Darrell Ament, 1414 Glcn Qrive~ Anahiem, stated it ~, t~is understanding the item was to be heard on June 6. He requested a continuance to allow tlme for property owners to review plans. Chairman Tolar K,ointed out that this was ~i continued item ~~nd no new notifications are sent out. Magdalena Fleckstein, 1187 Crown Street, related that she had been asked to sig~ permission for someone to build apartmen[s and pointed out that she had no[ been notified of the hearing. The Chairman asked what fier ~bJections were to lhe project and she stated she ob}ected to the noise and traffic. Rose Ann AmenC, 1414 Glen Drive, Anaheim, was concerned about the dense papulation impacting traffic and noise~ etc. She also questioned wh~e[her c~r nut ihz size of the site was really 5 acres d5 it did rot appear to her to be that big. (CommiSSioner Herbst pointed out it was approximately 5•18 acres). Helen Brace, 1192 Crown Street, voiced o~p~sition to a~artments in the neighb~rh~od, feeling this would down9rade th~ homes. Jenny Ware, a resident on Arbor Street, was cc~ncerned about the privacy and about the safety of the children with increased traffic, Mr. Frear pointed out that lot coverage had been reduced from 50~ [0 40~. Ne felt this project would not downgrade the area beca~ise these will not be chPap apartments. He stated the Traffic Engineer felt a salutlon had been prov+ded for the traffic problem. He felt privacy to adjacent owners would be provided by the landscaped ar~a. The Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Herbst asked what type of landscaping was planned for ths buffer. Mr. Frear stated that the landscape plan had not been done. but that some trees would b~ there. Commissioner Herbst suggested that large trees on 20 ft. centers be p anted to create the buffer and privacy desired. ~ r 5/23/77 ~ '+~ . . ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P'_ANNING COMMISSION~ May 23, Ig77 77-340 Ela NEG DEC, ANO RECLASSIFICATION N0, 7E,-~7-~0 (continued) t'he Commissi~~n aske:i Traffic Engine~r Paul Sinyer about the traffic generated from a c~mmercial deveiopment versus apartment complex. with Mr, Singer replying that commercial devel~~~ments generate two times as much tr~ffic. Con~r+(astoner Herbst p~inted out this action would down zone the area as far as traffic i~ con~r,•ned~ and provide a buffer which a commercial development would not be required tn provide. He felt the project has been upgraded to g(ve property owner5 as rnuch protection d~ possible. Curth~~issioner Kinq pc~inted ouc that Glen Orive w~uld be blocked off and no traffic thraugh it. !~r staccd ihat ff Anahcim i: to c;ro:~r ~nd progre 5, traffic will increasp• f,hairman Tolar agr~~ed with CommiSSioner Herbst and poin[ed out th~t a commercial develnpment could g~ in without con~;nq before the Lommission and traffic would be incre~sed more than with the proposed project, Joel Fick, Ass~ciate Planner~ explained the exiscing zoning of the site and zoning of the surrounding area. Commissioner Barnes felt this pro~erty is not suitable for single family hornes due to surrounding develupment and will not remain vacant, She felt the propused pro- Ject would be a better usc since a commercial development would be closer to the hnmos . ACTION f,ommissioner Kinq offered a motion, secondrd by Commissioner Herbst, and MOTION CARRIED ~5-~) ~Conxnissioner Linn abstaining since he had not been presenl at the previous hearing, and Conmissionrr Johnson absent) that pursuant to th~ provisions of the California Environmental Qwality Act, khe Anaheirn C~ty Planning Commission does hereby find that the propased construction uf a 12~-unit apartment complc~x on approximately 5•18 acres, lncaced appruximatc~ly 419 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street will not have signiiicant individual or cumulative adverse ir~pacts on the envir~nment and, therefore, does recommend [o the City Council of t~e City of Anaheim that a Negative Declaratian fr~m the requirement to preQare an environmental impact report be approved and the Initial Study submitteci by the petitioner• indicates no significant adverse impacts. The Neg~ative Declaration is on file at City Hall. ACTiON Commissioner Kiny offPred Resolutio~, PC77-105 and moved for its passage and adoption that t~ie Anaheim City Planniny Commission doe.s hereby recommend to the City Council ~f the City of Anaheim that petition for Reclassification No. 76-77-50 be approvsd, subject to the petitioner submit;ing landscape plans for the buffer zone with large trees on 20 ft. centers to Staff for review and subject t4 the Indepartmental Committee Recommendations. Resolution PC-77-105 was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMIS~IONERS; BARNES, ~AVID, IIERBST~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMM{5SIOt~ERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: LINN ABSEhT: COMMISSIONERS: JOHNSON 5/z3/77 ~ ,~ ~ MtNUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN, May 23, 1977 71-3~+1 Th~*. Asst. City Attorney explained th(s act(on wl~l automatlcally go beforc the City Council in anproximately three weeks. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION OWNER: Stephen -lopkins Dev~lopment Co.~ 1303 CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1706 ANacado~ Ste. 225 Newport Beach, CA 92660. ~~ AGENT~ Short Stop Orive-Thru, 1444 N. Glassell, Oranye~ CA 926G7. Request ~.o permit drive-thru restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on approximately 0.3 acre, lacated approximately 115 fe~et north of the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue~ and further described ~~s 1703 Kellogg Drive. There was na one appearing in apposition. Althaugh the Staff report was not read~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Joel Fi~k. Associate Planner, reported the applicant had reouested a continuance for two weeks to June 6, 1977, In order tu obcain additional information. ACTION CommiSSioner King offe.red a mUtion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (with C~mmissioner Linn :.~bstaininy and Chairm~7n Johnson absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby reopen Che public hearing and continue consideration ot~ the subject itFm to th~ regular Planning Commission meetiny of ,.lune 6, 1977, for additional infarm~tion, a5 requPSt~~d by the petitioner. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Owners: William P, and Emma S. ~regder, 1629 RECLASSIFICATION N0, 7-77-51 Ricky Avc., Nn~iheim, Reques[ for rr_c4ass~fic~- tion from CG ta RM-1200 on a rr_ctang~~lariy- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1 acre, having 4~- fronc~ae e,f approximately 199 fP~t on the east side of Easy Mlay, haviny a maximum ci~~;~th of approximately 216 feet, and being located ap~~rc~ximately 160 feet r,ort.h ~t the cer.ter line of Katella Avenue. Also, reclassification from CG ta CL on 3 r~ectangularly-shaped parcel of land cons;sting of approximately C1.5 acre located at the northwest corner of Y.atella Avenue and ~asy Way, having approximate frontages of 216 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue and 1p0 feet ~n the east side ~` Easy Way. There was no appearinq in opposition. Although the Staff report was not read at the meeting~ it is referred to and made a part of rhe minutes. Mr. William P, Bragder, the petitioner, stated he had nathing to add to the report. ACTION Cortmissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioncr Oavid and MOTION CARRIED (6-0) with Chairman Johnson absent, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the subject proposal an property con- sisting of approximately 1 acre and 0.5 acre located approximately 160 fe~t north of the centerline of Katella Avenue and northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Easy Way~ and doe~ hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that a Negative Declaration from the requir~ements to prepare an environmental impact report be approved for the subject property on the basis that there vrould be no individual or cumulative adverse impact on the environment due to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designatrs the subject property ,for general commercia~/ medium dens~ty reside~tial land uses commensurate with the proposal, and the 5-23-~7 t ~ ^~ EIR NEGATIVE DECLA~tATION b RECI.ASSIFICATION NQ, 76-77-51 (continued) 77-342 Initital Study submltted by the petitioner indicates no signiflcant adverse environmental impact; and tF~at the Negative Declaration substantiating the foregoing findings is an file in the City Hall. ACTION Commission~r King afFered Resolution No. PC 77-1G6 and movsd for its passage and adoptlon, that the Anaheim City Planninq C~mriission does h~±rcby r~commend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that Petition for Reclassification No. 76-77-S1 be approved~ subJect to the Interdepartrnental Committee Recommendations. Resolutlon No, PC 77-106 passed by the following vot~•: AYES: COMM15510NER5; KING, BARNES, DAV;D, NERBST, TOIAR~ LiNN NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE At1SCNT: COMMISSIONERS: JANNSON EIR NF.G/1TIVE OECIARATION OWN.:PS: ftob~~~l N, and Marjorie W. Fackincr. RECLASSIFICATION N0, 76-77-52 82'1 S, Sunkist StreeL, Anaheim~ CA 92806. Reclassification r~yuest from RS-A-43,000 to RS-7200 and variance request for waiver of mar.imum fencc height and requirement that all lots rear-on an arterial highway. co estabiish a 4-lot~ P,S-7200 subdivision on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consiatinq of approximately 1.8 acres locaLed at the northeast. corner of Jamison Strcet and Sunkist Street. further described as $22 S. Sunkist 5[reet. The Staff report wa~ not read at the n~eeting, but i~s referred to and made a n~irt of the rnlnutes. Mr. Robert H. Fackiner, the petitioner, stated he agreed t.~ith staff recommendations. Mr. J. P. Shay, 2510 Bethel Drive~ stated his opposit~~n to the two story units feeling they would be an intrusion of privacy. He ;tate.d he would like to 5ee the unit as far to the south as possible and single s~:ory. He also stated that he had talked with the petitioner and felt the~~ agreed, Chairman Tolar p~inted out the two should work together as the only action before the Planniny C~mrn3SS~on was appruval of the reclossification in relat:onship to the lo[ split. The petitioner explained ihe plan to Mr. Shay and his plan for continuing the existing fence:. ACTION Commi~sioner H:rbst off~red a motiun, seconded by Commissioner Oavid and MOTION CARRI~U (with Chairman Johnson absent) tF~at the Anaheim City Planning Cammissio.~er r~as revie~ied the subject proposal on property consisting ~f approximately 1.8 acres located at the northeast corner of Jamison Street and Sunkist Street, and does hereby recommend to the City Council of the C:ty of Anaheim that a Negative Declaration from the requiremeni= to pre- p~re an environ^~entat impa~t report be approved for th~e subject properLy nn the basis that ';;e lots are larger than existing lots and there are no anticipated traffic problems and there would be no individual or cumulative adverse impact or. the environment due to the approval of this Negative Beclaration since the Anaheir~ General Plan designates the subject p~operty for low-denslty residential land uses commensurate with the proposal~ and tiie Initia! Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significa~t 5-z3-77 A~ ~'a MINUTES~ ANAH~IM CITY PZ.ANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 1977 .,~~ l 77•343 EIR NEG. DEC, AND RECLASSIFICATION No, 76- -52 E Variance 2940 (continued) edvers~ environmental impacl; and that th~ Negative Declaration substanttating the foreqoing findings is on file in the Office of the P1Anning Department in City Hal~. ACTION Commissloner Herbst offered Resolution No, PC 77-101 and moved f~r its passed and adoption~ that the AnAhcim City Pla~ning Comm'sslon does hereby recommend to the City Councli of the City of Anaheim that Petttion for Reclassification No. 76-71-52 ne approved~ subJect ~u the Interdepartmental Commlttee Recommend~tions. Res~lution No. fC 77-107 pas5c:d by thc following vo[c: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; NERBS7, ~3ARNES. DAVIU, KiN~, T4lAR, LINN NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; JONNSON ACTION Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution PC 71-108 and mc~ved far its passage and adoption, that the Anah~im City Planning Commission does hereby ap~~rove petition for Variance No, 2940 on ttic basis that the access is limited and hardship is created by i~gress and egres; and the heignt of the fence should be 6 feet, cuntinuin4 the existing fer.ce. Resolution F'C 77-108 was passed hy the follow+ng vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Hprbst, Barnes, David, Y.ing, Tolar, Linn NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT~ COMMISSIONERS~ JOHNSON EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION OWNERS~ William M, and Betty Jo Clow, 2 Rue RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7-77-55 Valbonne, Newport Beach~ CA 92660. Request vARIANCE N0. 2937 for reclassification from RS-A-43,000 to RM-12C0 and variance request to waive maximum buiiding height to construct a 13-unit apartment complex on a recr.angularly-shaped parcel of land consisting ~f 0.5 acre loca[r~l approximately 173 feet south of the center- line cf WilkEn Way. Chairman Tolar Q~Pf'iP_Cj to hear Item 13 along with Item 5 at this time, due to their closeness. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION OWNERS: William M, and 8etty Jo Clow, 2 Rue RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7-77-54 'Jalbon~e, Newport Beach, CA 92660. ENGINEER: VARIANCE N0. 293 Salkin En~ineering Corp., 1215 E. Chapman. Orange, TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 9815 Ca. 92666. Request for Reclassification from kS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 and variance request for waiver of maxi~,ium building height and minimu~n recreatlonal-leisure area on property consisting of approximately 3.3 ecres~ located 282 feet east of the centerline of Haster Street and Tentative Trect request for• 12-lot, 48-~nit, RM-1200 subdivision. There were 55 persons appearing +n opposition of these requests, They waived the reading of the staff reports. Although the Staff reports were not read at the meeting. the~ are referred to and make a part of the minutes. Asst. City Attorney Lowry reported the receipt of a telegram and other letters 5-23-77 ~ ~~~ ~ 77-34~+ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING CQMMISSION, May 23~ 1977 EIR NEG, DEC,~ RECLASS. 76-77'S4 VAR, 2937 EIR NEG, DEC~ RECLASS, 76-77-SS~ ' ga~ cQ~tinued VARIANCF 2q~6 AND 'ENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. in opposition and Commissionittonsbcontaining~overP30~isignaturesninpopposition audfence pres~nked other pet of these requests, cA 92902• Although letters from Mrs. M~rie R, Wier, 2226 Vern Street~ Anaheim, ,y52~+ Dennls Belanger, ~~5z7 Tiller Avenue~ Oran!1e, CA; Mrs. Patricia Be~aAnahclm, CA; Tiller Avenue, Orange~ CA; Marilyn F. Miller, 2153 S. Vern Street, Cathy CutlereSereAlso,raatele9ram frtom~Cc~'MthCisselirwa~rnot read~,dbutkesamadet of thP minut a part of thF: minutES. The petitions presented in opposi[ion are on file in the Planning Department in City Hall and are made a parl of the minutc~>. William M. Clow, the petitioner, explained he had lived in Anaheim and had raised his children in Anaheim. He explained he had acquired the property hoping to develop it. the General Plan shows this site for medium density and that is what he has tried to cio. Nis designer, Mr, Phelps was pr~sent to answer any questions. Mr.Gerald Ghelfle, 4542 W. Simmons, Orange obtained 300 siqnatures for ~etitions in six days opp~sing the requests. He ~bjected to the intrusion of multi far~ily apartm~nts into sinyle fa~nily area. Ne read the cover letter of the petitiun stating reasons for apposition, Hc felt traffic would be increased, the area would be ov2rsaturated with prople with not enough schools, parks, ecc, He felt this projece would affECt home values and reclassification ~f the zoning would not be consistent with the zoning in the arPa. Barbara Wohlt, 304 Bluebell Place, ~naheim, voiced concern about the schools and problems they are already experiencin9 with the turn over in the sch~ols. Rose Hindman, 501 E. Wilken Way, Araheim, sr.ated st~e was a Police Officer and was aware of the crime nrablem created with too many Feaple in an area. She was alsa concerned with the school problem and ~~ore buses being required to bus the children to schools. Mrs. Emma C. Mohler, 2230 S. Haster~ resident at that location for 27 years, was concerned about maintaining the single family units and has seen the arfect of apartments on the area. She felt Mr, Clow has the right to ask the C~ty to change the zoning, buC the peaple living there also have right~, having signed petititions and felt their democratic riyhts must be recognized. (Audie~ce applause). Nick Netty, 11872 lst Street, Orange, attorney for a resident across the street from the property~ referred to the regulations and stated it was feasible that the owner could have single family homes on the property. He referred to Section 18.030.40 and the one above it and stated if approved this could be considered as granting a privilege to Mr. Clow. RoberC Haislip, 2205 Anchor Street, Anahein;, objected due to the water shortage already existing, running out of natural gas and energy, He felt the dense population in [his area is not needed. Carl Thisle~ adjacent property owner objected to having apartments on the property, 5-23-77 ~ Jw~~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CI~~Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 23~ 1977 71'3'~5 EIR NEG.OEC., RECLASSIFICATION 76-77-55~ VARIANCE 2937, E~R NEG, DEC. 'RECIASSIFI- CATION 6-77-5~~~ VARIANCE 2q3~i and TENTAI'IVE MAP OF TRACT N0, ~015 (continued) because of the trash and debris being thrown onto his property, Jim Harris~ 13032 Simmons, Orange~ resldent across che street, referreJ to the environmental impact report feeling the increase in traffic should be GonSidered an adverse impact. (applause from audience), Chairman Tolar pointed out tl~e Planniny Cormiiysion had not said there would not be an adversP impact. Donn~ Harryman,resident across the street from vacant property, v~+ced c~ncern about (ncreased traffic ~nd parking problems. Robert Schaeffer, 137 F.. Wilkin Way~ Anaheim~ objected to the overcrc~wded condition. Some of his duplexes will abut ehe proJect and with two story uniks, privacy of the duplexes~ will be invaded. Mr.Phelps, 409 N. M;jin, Oran9e, designer of the project~ referred to the General Plan of tF~e City of Ana~eim which shows thc arc~ for mediurr~ density with his feeling that schaol impacts, parks, etc, had been taken in[o consideration at the time the Geners~l Plan wa~ approved. He poin[ed out exist~ng adjacent 2-story units. MR. Cic~w reported that his wife. had called the a~fected schools and wa~ toid there would be one less teacher next ,ear due to [he turnover because of ;he apartments and the school~ are not overcrowded. The public hearing v~as closed. Commissioner Herbst stated h~ fe~t this was a slight over-building of the site. However, because of the surrounding multi-family units~ if it were cfecided thi, should be all single family homes, then the people buying the hames would be abuttir~g multi-family units, Ne felt single story garden type duplexes would cut t.he density and traffic in half. He thought this parcel should be considered as a transition area. Ne feit some multi-fart~ily unils are necessary to give the young people a start. Commissioners King and E3arnes agreed that the density shuuld L,e cut. Commissioner Nerbst asked Mr. Clow for his thoughts on this propasal, Mr. Cluw stated he felt this project would serve as a buffer between the homeowners and apartments, that owner-occupied units are more desirable than apartments. He felt this is a good project. Commissioner Herbst sta[ed it is probabiy in the wrong location, He also expressed concern about the traffic and the narrowness of the street. Commissioner Barnes questiuned the Negative Declaration~ with the feeling that there is a probler~ with scliools and traffic and wondered if an environmental impact report should be recommended in this case. Chairman Tolar stated he felt Item a5 was probably a fair request and he could live with it~ but felt Item al3 would increase the traffic, He also felt the two story ~nits would be an invasion of privacy. 5-23-77 i+~ • ^ { ~ MINUItS, ANAMEIM CIIY 1'LANNING GUMMIS~IUN~ May 'l3, ly// //-34b Mr.P~~r.lps requested a contlnuance to resubmit revised plans. The Chalrman stated he was generaliy agalnst continuances, but in this case felt it would be a good thing. Ne suggested the developer meet wtth the homeowners and stated he would only vote `or a continuancE w(th this as the unders~anJiny, ACTION Cortmtssloner Herbst offered a mo~icn, seconded by Cornmissioner King, and MOTION CARRI~O (With Cha(rman Johnson absent) tf-at the Anaheim City Plann(ng Commission does hereby reopen the public hearing and continue consideration of the subJect item to the regular Planning Gortmission Meeting of June 20, 1977~ to allow the petitioner to submit revised plans. Chairman Tolar pointed out that no n~~tices will be sent and this hearing will be reconvened c~n June 20th~ sometimr_ after 1:30 ~.m. Commissianer King asked if the Commission wished to discuss an environmental impact report with Commissioner Barnes stating she did not care about a full-fledged EIR~ but did want impacts on schools and traftic discussed. She asked that a statement be provided fr~m the Anaheim School District and that a traffic count be provided. A brief recess was called at 3~00 p.m, and the meeting reconvened at 3'10 p.m. EIR CATEGORICALLY EXEMFT - CLASS I 01~MERS: JOIIN J. AND NELEN L. LADIG~ SR. VARIANCE N0. 2933_ G13 E. Wilhclmtna St.~ Rnahelm, Cal. 92805, Req~est for watve~ of minimum number and type of parking spaces to permit an existing iliegal garage conversion~ on a parcel of land consisting of approximately 5~57. sq. ft. at 613 end 617 E. Wilhcimi~a Street. There was no one appearing in opposition. Although tl~e Staff report was not read at the meeting~ it is referred to and made ~ part of the minutes. Mr. John ~.adig~ 613 C. Wilhelmina~ Anaheim, owner~ reported that it had been impossible to get out ~f a vehicle ps~k ed in the ga~age prior to the cnnversian. lie converted the area to usable living space in 197o stating he was ~nt aware that a buitding permit was required for the inte~ior. The Coinm(ssion discussed the parking~ with the f~eling that there was ample parking since this is a corner lot. It was noted that the Director c,f th~ Planning Department had determined that the proposed activity fell within the definition of Section 3.01, Class l, of the City of Anah~im Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environmental impact Report and is~ therefore, categoricaily exempt from the requirements to file an EIR. ACTI01~ Commissioner King nffered Resolution No. PC 77-109 and moved for its passage and adoption, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve pekition for Variance No. 2933 on the basls that the pe~itioner did demonstrate that a':~.~•dship does exist in that the wi~th of the garage made it impossible to park ~ v~hicle and thai ample parking is available~ subJect to Interdspart- mental CanKnittee Recommendations. On rall call, the foreqoi~g ~esolutinn was passed by the follawing vote: S/23/77 ~ .~ M I NUTES ~ ANAHE ( M C( TY PLANN 1 NG COMM 1 SS I ON ~ May Z 3. ~ 977 77- 347 E I R CATEGORI CAI.LY EXEHPT: VARI ANCE N0, 2~33 (con t i nued) ~_ AVES; COMMISSIQNERS: k3AAN~S. t)AVIU. HEi~pST, KiNG, TOLAR b IINN NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NON~ AEIS~NT: COMMISSIONERS: JONNSON Chairman Talar statod that even thaugh he had been supportive of thls request~ duo to the wldth of lhe exlsting garage, he iolqtit nat be sa recepkive to sameone coming In who has auilt in the hardship. EIR CATEGORICALLY EXEMPt - ClASS 1 OWNERSt RO~ERT L. A~~D EOITH M. TAYLOR~ VARIANCE N0. 293 3013 Nolm Dr., Csriand, Texas 75~41~ " AGE~~T; JAMES li. TNYLQR, 92h S. Oakcres~: P1 ., Anahetm~ CA 32f~U1~. Requ=st fo~ wa~vc~ af mintmum number of enclosed parking spaces to permit en existing Illeyal garage conversfon on a parcel conslsting of approxtmatuly 0.2 acre lo~:atec at 32h South Oekcreat Place. There were tliree pe~ple in attencfanee indlcotl~g opposi tion. They walved the readtng of the Staff repo~t. Altho~igh the Sr,eff was not read~ It Is referred to end made a part of the minutes. '~r. Robert l. Taylor~ pctittoner~ stated his reason for converting the garagc tn a bedrocxn was because he had three teanage chi l dren and e baby deughter. Ne stated he has ample on-sit~ parking area. (Ilis drivewey is 51 f~. long.) Mr. Frank Viyerel 1~ 912 So. Oakcres t, Anah~im~ stateJ opposi tion because he fe) t the conversion Was for the purpose of a proficable business In that the pet(tioncr does babysi t uther chi Idren. iie fe lt this ~~nrnqradns the n~eighborhood. The one pa~ktng space ~n front of the dwe) l(,.~s is Shared an~ many times I~is guests have to walk a Jistance because there is no pa~king spr~ce. tic felt thr. babysitting business wauld cause a pai•king problem with parents droppiny off and picking up their children. Assnclate Planner Fick stated tiie application sut,mittcd stated the nursery was for [heir dauyhter and not a comrtsercial nursery. Jerry Specksgor~ g25 Oakcrest, Anaheim~ referred to the parking and stated there is a problem with parkin~. Mr. Taylor stated that a 1 icense for babysitting has been ap~i ied for and at present tt~ey have two clii ldren. H~ stated he seldom parks in front of the clwelling. f~e also statecl the bedroom was ctinver•ted for his children and is not being used as a nursery. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barnes questioned Mr. Taylor ebout the number of chi ldren babysat and their ages. Mr. Taylor reported the,~ have two chlldren who are abuut two years old. He stated they aee waiting on a lic:ense andthat he needs to get a chest x-ray. Ne also ~tated the nebrest neighbo~ is 60 feet away. ~ ~ MI NUTES ~ ANAl1E 1 M C I TY PI.AfJN I NG COMM I SS I ON ~ Mey 2 3~ ~ 977 17~ 3W~ C I R CATEGOR I CAI.LY EXEMPT - CLASS i; VAR I ANCE N0. z934 (tont 1 nued) . CorRnissionor Herbst suggested e garage could be buf 1 t(n front of the existing garage, Ilc felt this is clifferent than the provious ha3ring as he has room to build a yerag ~ and has created his own herdship. I~e rofe rred ta the Ordinrncn requir(ng 2 covered yarage spaces. He stated that in order to c~rant a varlanc~ a I~erdshl p mus t be shown. Chofrman Tole ~ ~tated he wss not gn(ng ta support any topu of resol-ition where thes hardship han been bullt (n. t1s fPit, however~ that forcing a person to b~.,i Id e gareg~ did not solve thn parkinq problem~ as you can't 6orce him to pu: the car in the gerage. It was noted if~at the Qirector of the Planning Oepartmcnt has detGrwlned that the proposed activity fell within tl~e definitlon o1 Section 3.01~ Class 1. of tlir. Ct ~y of Anahe im Guidcl ir~es to thc Requirements for an Ei~vironmentel Impact Report and is , therforc~ Gategorically exempt from the re quirements to file an EIR. ACTION Commissioner I~erbst affcrecf Resolutlon PC 77-I10 and moved for Its ~,ass age and adoption, that the Anehim City Plann(ng C~mmission does here by ~ieny petition for Variance No. 293~~ on thc basls that the peti tloner dtd not demonstrate thai a hardsh(p does exist. Resolution PG 77-IIG was pASSed by the followtnc~ vote; AYES: COMMISSIOIIERS: fiCRaST~ pAVID~ KING~ TOI.AR, BARNES~ LINN NOES: COMMISSIONEftS; ~l4~~E ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: J011NSCN The Comm(ssio~i discussed whethcr or not babysttt(ng was a permitted use with Assoclate Pla nne~ Fick pointing out it is a Fermitted use. Asst. City At torney Lowry gave Mr. Taylor his written right to appeal. The Canmisslon suggest~id Mr. Taylor check with Staff co~cerning add~ng on ~ garage as t~Js woulr~ enhance the value of his property and maybe alleviate some problems with his neigt~bors. EIR CATEGURICALLY EXEMPT - CLA55 ~ OWNERS: Noward ti, and Helen l. Gilmore VARIAMfE N0. 293 ~T 527 N. Rc+se SC.~ Anaheim~ CA 92305. AGENTS: Gene and Uarothy Kannard~ 811 W. Syca;iare Street~ Anaheim, CA 92~305. Request for waiver of permi tted uses to expand an app~oted auto r~pafr facility on land coi~sisting ~f approximately 0.4 acre located at 760 N. Anahe(m Boulevard. There was no one appearing in opposl[ion .-nd although the Steff report was not Cead at the meeting~ it is refe~red co and made a part ~f the minutes. Mr. Gene Kan n ard, agent fo~ the vwner~ 81) W. Sycamore Street~ Anaheim, stated he wished to e n close a canopy on the existing service station. The public hearing was clvsed. ~ 1µ ~ M I NUTES , AIJAHE I M C I TY PLANN I NG COMM i SS I ON , May 23 ~ 1977 77-349 E~~ G~EOORICALLY EXEMPT -CLASS 1; VARIANCE N0, 2938 (continued) Commissi~ner Herbst referred to the Ordinance concerning conversions of a service station. The petltioner stated th at the plans have been submitted for Pl~n Check t~ the Building Department. It was noted that the Di rector of the Plonn~ng Department hes determined that the propo ~ed nclivi[y fell with~in the defir~ition of Sectlon 3.01, Class 1, of the C(ty of Anahelm Gu ide- Ilnes to the Requiremtnts for an Environmental Impact Report end is,Nherofora,categori ca11y exdmpt f ran tho ~oqu i remcnts to f i le en E I R. ACTION Commissioner K ing offered Resolutian PC 77-I11 and moved for its passagA and adoption, tha t the Anaheim City Planning Cortxnission doe5 h4irl,y aNprove Pe it i t ion for Var ~ a~~-~ N~, 7938 aiil~,j~r.t to 1 nterd~partmontal Commi ttee Recumrnendat ions, Qn r~i 1 cal 1, the forego ing resolut ion was passed by the fol low iny vole: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: King~ Her•bst, David, Tolar, Linn, Barnes NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT~ COMMISSIONERS: JOHNSON E I R NEGAT I VE UECLARAT I ON OWNERS : PAUI. AND CAROLYN W, KROESEN , 451 Pe ra 1 ta H i 1 1 s D r., VARIANCE N0, 2939 Anaheim,CA 928Q7. Request fur waiv~r of minimum lot area to establish a 2-lot, RS-HS-j+3,UUU(S(:) subdivis,ion an a pa~-ce1 of lar~d consisting of apprexi~nately 1.9 acre lacated:at 451 Per-alta Nills Orive. There wa~ one person ap p eG. 'n opposition, and he waived che reading of the Staff r epo and al though the Staff report .as not read, i t is rcferred to and made a part of the m i nutes. Mr. Paul Kroesen, 451 P e ralta liills, petitioner, explained this requrst is being made due to an engineering error when some lots were split pr~viously. He further explained th e previous lot splits and loc sizes. He ~tated he did not want to creale any unpleasant ness with any of his neighbors. He stated he now has two acres and one home and with the tax s i tuat ion -aould 1 ike to se~ 1 one lo:. Nerbert Christensen, 5108 Crescent Drive, Anaheim, President of Peralta Hills Homeowner~s Improvem~nt Assoc i at ion , spoke i n oppos i c i on . He fel t th.is could set ~ precedent a~d t.~e standards must be upheld. He suggested Mr. Kroesen attempt to purchase the area necessary from his neighbors or move the Pasement referred t~. Mr. Kroesen explained t hat he agreed with Mr. Christensen at the time there was conce r r~ the large ranches would be divided into 1/2 acre lotc. Ne explained that he was only trying to use the five acres he had owned for 20 years in its highest and best use at no possible inconvenience or disservice to anvone around tiim. The pub 1 i c hear i ng was e Ics ed . C~rrrnissioner Nerbst stated that s ince the ~ounr.i 1 pol icy is to maintain tlie one acre T ots , the Commission shoul~ s tand by the rules also. Commissioner Barnes fel t to grant this variance would be granting the petitior~er a use we would not allow anyone else, and, therefore, the Cortxnission could not ~~gally grant lt, 5-23-77 .. ~ • ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNIIJG COMMISSION~ Mey 1~, 1y77 7i'3S~ EIR NEGATIVE DECL.ARA710N VARIANCE N0. 2939 (continued) ~ ... ... Mr. K~oesen explaln~d that Staff had explalned to him thet each variance Is bosed on its own conditions and ttils would not be a precedent setting s(tuation. Ccxnmissioner Borncs steted chat by Stete law a varl~nce cnnnot be c~ranted to one purson fnr use of the prapa.~y that we don't grant to someone elsc, Commiss(oner Ilerbst explalned agaln that the Counci) hed turned down a request tl~at tlie Planning Cammfssion h~d recormee~ided for a 300 ft. vartance. Cnmmissioner King suqqesteci movtng the twenty foot easement. ACTION Commissloner Herbst off~red a motlon~ seconded bq Commissloner Barnes and MO1'ION CARRI~p (with Commissloner Johns~n absent) thet the Ane helr C(ty Planntng Canmissiori has revlewed the sub,ject proposal on praperty consfsting of approximately 1.3 acres located approximately ta8 feet south c,f th~ centerline of Peralta titlis Drive, baing located approxi- mately 3~J feet w~st of Lhe centerline of Calle Qana, and further descr i bed as 451 Pe ra i ta II i 1 1 s Dr I ve ~ and docs hereby recommend to the City Councii ,:~f the City of Anahelm thet a Negattve Decl~ration from the ~equtrsment to prep~re an environmental (rnp~cL report be approved for ~he subJect property on thc bas s that there are no ind(v(dual or cumulatlve adverse impacts on the environment due to the approval of this Negative Decla ration since tl~e Anehelm General Plan desiynates tl-e subJect property for estete dc:nsity res(denttal land utes commensurate with the pr~posal, and the Inlttel Study submitLed by the petttlo ner (ndicates na slgnificant adverse environrr~ental imp3c.t;ond that the Negative Declaration substantiating the foregaing findings is on file in the Officc of tt~e Pl~nniny Department in City Hall. ACTION C~xnmissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC J7•il2 and moved for its passage and adoptian, that the Anaheim Citv Planning Commission does hereby deny petition for 1~ariance No, z939 on Lhc: basis that the petitloner did not demonstrate thet a hardship does exist. On roll call. kesolution PC 77~112 was passed by the foilowing vote: AYES : COMM I SS I ONtRS: HERBST ~ pAV I D~ K I h1G, TOLAR. aARNES ~ L I Nt~ I~OES : COMM I SS I ONkRS: NC1N~ ABSENT: COl~MISSIONCR5: JOHNSON Mr. K1'oesen left the Council Chambers before the City Attorney could prese nt his wriczen rtghts to appeat. This will bc mailed ta him. ENVIRONMCNTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. $5 OWNERS: TEXACO AIlAHEIM NILLS~ INC., 3350 L U E ERM N0. 0 ~li Ishi re Blvd, ~ I.os Angels~ CA 900i0. AGENT: CLYDE CARPENTER b ASSOCIATES~ INC. 192 Wilsh(re Ave.~ Suite 1n9~ Anaheim~ CA 9Z8o1. Request to permit an au tomobile service station with waiver uf (a) permitted wall signing, (b) mi~nimum builCing setback ~ and (c) 1 andscapi ng ad jacent to i n ter i or boundary 1 i nes on proper ty conststing of .67 acre on the east side of Anaheim Nllls Road, 440 feeti no rth of Nohl Ra~ch Road. 5-23-17 wr ~~~ MINUTES~ ANAMEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 23~ 1917 ~ ..f 71-35- Th~re was one person eppearing in oppos(tio~. The reading of thQ Staff repo~t was waived; howcver~ It will be refer~ad to snd mt+de n part of the minutes. Mr. Mark Murphy~ agent for Texeco~ liic.~ presented a rcndering of the pr~p~sed station. tie explalned the station would be fecing the shopping center snd access wouid be thraugh the sf~opping center~ wl~(ch c:ree~es the need for the walvers, The wall sign wauld n~t b~ seen from Anaheim Nills Road. He stated 25 treGs wc~uld be included in adrfitio~ to their normal landsc.ap(ng. llss~c i ate P 1 anner F I ck read m i nu tes of a 11liCNAC mee t 1 ng of Tuesday, May I 7~ 19'17 wi tl~ cf~e appl lcent~ es f~l lows: "T0: Anahnim Pi~nning Cortmisston FROM: Hill and Ganyon Municipal Advisory Committce SUBJECT: Texaco Anaheim Hills~ Inc, Application far CUP q170~3 (Ikem 10 on May 23~ lyJ7 Agen~Ja) Tl~a abnve applicant prestnted the(r p~aposed praJect to tiACMAC on Tuesday~ kay I1, i~77. 12 members of [he Committee wcre present. O~ly one membcr had seen the proposal prior to the meeting and no member I~ad any opportunity for advance study of the project. Concerns volced by members were lack of ttme to adequately study the pro}ect and stcure cexnmunity input. In an informal roll call~ eight members approved the haslc proJect. Three of these elght~ ~~owever~ voiced reservation because :hey had no time to secure community input, landscaping and setback walvers, Four voted against tt~e project w(th definite feelings that no setback wafver should be granted. AI1 four also expressed c~ncern ragarding need for (nput from communities closest to che project. Two of che disse~ting votes also ex~ressed concerns for landscap(nq end traffic. Three of four negative votes we~e fram the m~mbers ltvi~g closest to thc project. PLEASE NOTE: The Cornmittee d{d not evaluate the variance for the requi~eo flndings. under the Muntcipal Code, for grantfng a variance. " Mr. F~ans P. Gowa, 531 Paseo Dcluna~ hom~owner's association representative~ stated the associatton feels strongly [hat such a service station is not necessary and i~ undeslrable and would be an intrusion into their residential area. Ne could not see any reason why the petitioner could'nd compiy with the 50 foc~t setback and he felt the hours of operation should be restrictod to ~ot before 7:00 f~ the mornin~ and no later than 10:00 ai nlght; and no major repairs to be done; and nothing on klie roof. The assocdation asked that the request oe denied. Anothe r concern of the associatien was whether the station would be a fi~ancial success as they didn't want to see a vaoant service statlon. ~ .~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING COMNISSION~ Mey 23~ 1917 17-352 EIR N0. 85. and CONDITIO~~I1L USE PCRNIT 1708 (continuad; ~ The Chatrman asked Mrs. Ilel! if she wished to add enything to the NACMIIC report and she replted that sverything wa~ covered In th• report. Mr. Murphy stated tl~ere wauld be: ~o mechanlcal mator(als on tf-e roof. Also~ a more stenlc vlewpo(nt from tha roadway ~~ould ba provtded since thare would be no opan bays facing the street. He stated tl~e hours of opa~stion could be dlscussed a~d that the area was resoarched prior to commlttment to determine whether the statian would be a success. Thc public heartny was closed. The Chalrman asked why a waiver was needed on ~'~e s~tback with sufficient ares ln the stiopping centcr. The petitloner explairied tha ~roperly I~as been subdividcd that way and leasing documents would have to be ci~an~ed and to move the station back wauld create problems with on-site clrculation. The Chairman asked about the walver of 25 trecs rrquircd sincc he had stated 25 trees would be provided. Annika Sa~talahti~ Asst. Plann(ng Director-Zoning~ explaineJ the trees would be prov~ded but nat at tha location spectfled, Chairman Tolar asked about the signing and stated he perso~ally would not support any signing other than what is allowed in cl~e: seenic corridor. He asked the pet(tloner what would happen if the request were denled, and it was ~eplied th~it tliey would eitl~er redesign or abandon the property. Commissioner Nerbst referred to minutes of the April S~ ~y71 meeting concerntng a statement from ~ill 5tark~ Vice Pres.e~f Anaheim fiiils Assnciation~ stipulating they would abide by the Scenic Corridor Ordinance when adopted~ which they have not done. Conmissioner Linn questioned Mr. Singer about [he traffic impact~ w(th Mr. S(nger reportiny tha[ a service sta[ion generates an averege of 1000 trips {~e~ day in yeneral. Comrnissioner Linn ~Iso asked for the locatlon of the cl~sest service station and it was replied that it was about 1 3/4 miles at La Palma and imperial. Chairman Tolar stated he found no problem witli the use, but c~uld not vote for the variances. Commissioner Nerbst felt it is up to Texaco to come up witli site plans to beaUtify the araa. Rr. Mu~phy explained che access points to Commissioner Herbst at his request. He also explained the landscaping planned. Canmissioner Herbst f~lt since ihe property is in the corridor zone, the access would have t~ be developed in accordance with the Traffic Engineer's approval. lie thoughr, plans for imp~ovement of the right of way should be appdoved by the Traffic Engineer and should be a condition of appr'oval. Commissioner Barnes felt the buildtreg could be set back and Mr. Murphy explair~~i there were plans for development of par~ing north of the sitc and moving the 5-23-77 ~. ' _ ~ ,~ MINUT~S~ ANANEIM C17Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ Mey 2~~ 1977 17-353 EIR.NO. 85. ANO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1708 (contfnued) bullding would block trafflc around the ends of service islands. ACTIUN Commissioner tlerbst offerad Resolutlon No. PC 77-113 and mov~d for its passAge and adoption~ that tho Anaheim City Plenn(ng Commtsslon does her~by yrent Petitton for Condlti~nal Use Permit No. 1708 to permit an automobile servtce statlon subJe~t to petttioner subm(tting ccxnplete I~ndscape plans for Ccxnmisslon approval end plan for drtveway o~ the north for Traffic Enginccr's approval prlor to the issuance of building permit~~ end the Canmission hereby de~les request for wat~ers for (a) permitted wall signing~ {b) mintm~rt- buildtng setback~ and (c) landsceping adJacent to {~tertor boundery~ subject to Interdepartmenta) Canmittee Recommendatlons. Un roll call, tl~e foregoing resolutton was passed by the foll~wing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONLRS: IIERUST~ DAVIU~ KING, TOLAR~ LINN~ EiARNES NOCS: COMMISSIONCRS: hlONC 11BSENT: ~OMhSISSI0NER5: JOHNSON It w3s explained to the petitioner ti~at this would not be another public heartnc~, but would com~ back to the Commission under ~the Reports and Recommendatlons portion of the agenda. (Chalrman Tolar was out of the Council Lhambers during the folluwing hearing.) EIR NEGATIVE DECLAftATION OWNCRS: H~ H pEVELOPMENT~ J. N. NEDRICK TENTATIVE MA OF T A T N0. 989g ~00 5. S~n Gabriei Dlvd.~ San Gabriel~ CA 9177G. ENGINCER: Lind b flillerud~ Inc., 2Q65 ~~untington 4 rive, San Marlno, CA 9 1108. R equest tc establish a 1-lot, 9-unit condominium subdivislnn on a parcel of land consisting of approximattly 1.0 acre a t 2901 41ess t Ha l l Road. Tticre was no one appearing in opposition and the reading of ~he Staff report was waived~ but is referred to and made a part of the minut~s. ACTION Commissionor King offered a rnotian~ seconded by Commissioner Dav(d and MOTION CARRIED (with Commissioner Johnson absent and Commissioner Linn ab- staining) tf~at the Analieim City Planning Cortmission has reviewtd the subjc~ct proposal on property consisting of approximately 1.0 acre at 2901 West ~all Road and does hereby recommend to the Clty Council of t~e City nf Anaheim that a Wegative Declaration from the requirement to preFare an environmental impact report be approved for tf~e subJect property on th~ basis that tt~ere are no individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the environment due to the ~~pproval of this Wegative Declaration stnce the Analietm General Plan designates the subject property for medium-density~ residential land uses commensurate with the propos~l and the Intital Study submitted by petitioner indicates no significant adverse envlron~nentai impact; and that the Negative Declaration substantiat~ng the foregoing findings is on file in the Office of the Planning Department. 5-23-17 ~~ Y ~ I~INUTES: ANAHEIM CiTY PLAI~NlNG COMMISSION~ May 23~ 1977 71-35W EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATION AND TEN7ATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0, 9899 (cantlnued ~_ A Negative Ueclarat(on was approved on this property for zoning on August 30~ ~s76. ACTION Commissloner King offored a mation~ saconded by Comm(ssfoner David and MOTION CARRIEU (Nith Chalrman Johnson ebsenc a~d Commi~atoner Linn ebstaln(ng and Ciialrman Tolar temporarlly out of the Chambar) ~hat tha Anahetm Clty Planning Commission does hereby f{nJ th~~. Che propo,cd subdivision~ t~~~~th~r with Ics design and improvemant. Is consistent wtth khe City of Anahelm's General Plan~ pursuant to GUVernment Coda Section 6647~,5~ and docs~ therefore~ approve 7entative Map of Tract 9899 fnr ten (10) RM-k00A lots~ subJect to the following conditic~nst 1. That the approva) of Tentetlve Map of Tract I~o, g89y is granted subject to the completfon of Reclassificatton No. 76-77-13. 2. That should thts subdivldfon be devrloped as more tl~an one subdivision~ each subdlvisl~n thereof shall be subm(tted in tentative f~rm for approval. 3. That ail lots within this tract ~hall be ~erved by underground utilitles. 4. That a final tract map of suGJect property shall bc subm~tted to anci approved by the City Counc(1 and Lhen be recorded in the pffice of the Orange County Recorder. 5. That the covenants, conditions~ and restrictions shall be submitted to and apprnved by the Cfty Attorney's OFfice and the Ctty Engineer prior to City C~uncil approval of the final tract map and~ ~urther, that the approved covenants~ conditions and restrictlons shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. 6. That prior to filing the final tract map~ the applicant shall submit to the City 1lttorney for approval ar denial a compleCe synopsis of the propased functioning of the operating corporation. including~ but not ldmited to~ the articles of incorporation, bylaws~ proposed methods of management~ bonding to insure maintenance of common property and buildings~ and such other information as the City Attorney may desire to protect the City, its citizens, and the purch~sers of the proJect. 7. That the owner(s) of subject prpperty shall pay to the City of Anahetm thc appropri~te park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Councit~ said fees to be paid at the t(me the building permit is issued. ~i. That dralnAge of subJect prc+perty shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City~ Engineer. 5-23-77 ~ ~ ~ ~: ^ ~ i MINUTES, Aneheim CITY PLANNING COMMISSON~ May 23, 1~71 77-35S (Chairmon Tolar returned to the Council Chambers.) EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION OWNERS: YORBA GRAVEL CO „ 1531 W. E1 Segundo. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7~i-77-S3 Cradena, CA 9024~, AGEN?: TA UEVELOPMENT VARIANCE N0. 2935 CoRP,, 1875 S. Lewis Street~ Anaheim, CA TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0,_~S Z. 9R805. Request for reclassification from ' ' "~ RS-A-43,000 to RS-S000~ and waiver of reyulre- ment that all lats abut a rublic street and tentaxive tract requesc for 9-lot, RS-5000 subdivislon on a parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.9 acres located southeast of ll7e intersection of the Richard M. Nixon Fr~eway on-ramp and Kellogg Drive, Therc was no onc ~ppcaring in oppoSiC~~n ~n~l thp r~Ariinq ~f the ~taff report was wa(ved. HowevPr, it is referrzd to and made a part of the minut~~s. Asst. City Attorney Lawry indicated three letters had bren received in opposition and were included in the Commiss(~ner's Agenda ~~clcets. These let~~rs were not read at the mceting, but are referred to and m~de a par~ of the minutes. Mr.William Shen, IB75 S. Lewis 5treet, Anaheim stated the variance is requested due t~ shape nf [he parcel and rhat a private str~et in the project is reyues[ed. The :ublic hearing was closed, The Asst. City Attorney asked Mr. 5hen if it L•~~~ the developer's intention to purchase pruperty for the 60 fout wide cul-de-sac from the Ci[y of Anaheim and he replied that they would. Mr. Lowery indicated to Mr, Shen that they would have to purchase th~ entire parcel and dedicate 30 feet back t.o the City. Commissioner Herbst asked if any sound attenuation measurements h'~d been macfe and Mr Shen replied that they had nnt dunc~ this. He pointcd out the freeway ramp is hlgher tha~ the r~ad elevatio~ ancf didn't foresee any sound problem, Commissioner Herbs[ pointed out the City policy regarding sound on all residentia) developments located within 600 feet of any existing ar a~jopted freeway. (The City of Placentia's problem with a tract of hornes near a railraad track was discussed.) Commissioner Herbst was concerned that [he d;:veloper was trying to put too much cn the site. He felt there would be a parking problem. Cha'rman Tolar agreed that he -~as trying to put too much on the property. He w~; also concerned about maintenance ~f the private street with th~e responsiblity eventually becami ~ a burden of the City. Ne was opposed to cr~ating that type of hardship on fo~~r buyers. He also feit the density was toa high for the area. Mr. Shen stated this was the densiky according to the Ger~c~ral Plan, Commissioner Herbst stated his objection to the four flag lots. He felt he could possib'•~ accept one flag lot, but not fc~ur. Cortwnissioner C.,rnes and Linn were both concerned about maintenance of the private street. Chairman Tolar expressed concern about t~ash collectian a~id emergency vehicle access. Ne suggested etiminafiny Lot ~5, 5-23-17 ~ , .! MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 23, 1977 77-356 EIR NEGATIV~ DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 76-77-53~ VARIANCE NQ. 2935 and I~NTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. ~8~, (~o~~tlnued) Mr.Shen pointed out the C C 6 R's will hAVe to be ~~pproved by the !'ity Attorney's office and the malntenance of the private street would be covered there~ but Chairm~n Talar pointed out that even though it would bc coverrr.t ther~, i: is not enforceable. Chairman T~lar asked Mr. Shen if~ he would prPfe~• to have a continuance in order to revise the plans, and he replied that he would. ACTION Commissioner Herbst moved to reopen the public hearing and continue ~onsideration of Tentative Map of iract No, 9857 al the meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commis~on of Junc 2Q, :977~ which w.~s 5a~anded by Commissioncr King, ~nd MOTIQN CARRIED (with f,h~irman Johnson absent). EIR NCf,ATIVE DECLARNTION RECLASSIF~CATION N0. 7b-77-'~'6 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 9876 222 E. Lincolr Ave., Anaheim~ CA RS-A-43~000 (SC) to RS-72000(5f) subdivision for a parcel of land approximately 1%y Feet south of OIJNERS: KEITH E, CAkU AND K.E.C, CQ. , 200 W. Shcrman Ave., Corona, CA ~1720. AGENT: W. D. Morris, 1249 E. Katella l1ve.. Orange, Ca. 92660, ENCINEER: Anar_al Engineering, 92805• Request for reclassification from and tenta~ive tract request for 17 lot RS 7200(SC) consisting of approxim;~tely 4.2 acres, lc~cated the centerline of Pal~ Alta Drive. There were two pe~ple in at[endance opposing the rcquest. Tl~ey waived the reading of the Staff report; however, iC is is referr~d to and made a part of the minutes. Mr, Bill Morris, 1249 E. Katella Ave. Orange, state~ he was in agreement with the Staff report recom-nendations, with the exception af Recommendation No. 5 concerning the existin9 well. He stated chis had been discussed with A~aheim Nills and they may want to use this wcll. He siat~d they wauld like to abandon the well or provide an easemen[. The location of the well as pointed out by Mr. Morris is between lots 15 and 16. Mr, Qavid Ward, 311 S. Heming Way, Anaheim, stated he was concerned about tt~e removal of the JO year old Eucalyptus trees. He objected to the reclassification of zoning and stated he would nol object to } atre lots. Larry Patterson s[ated he supported Mr. Ward. He referred to the Santa Ana Canyon property owners working with the Planning Department to only a11ow 22,000 sq. ft. lots. He stated he never received a notice that the trees were to be re,noved. He pointed out that there is a drainage problem to the south. Mr,Morris discussed the 15 foot access easement and staied that agreements have Seen worked out with Mrs. Gibson, He also stated that the drainage will be taken care of, Hrs. Doris Gibs~n who has a home for emotionally disturbed children v~iced her concern about the drainage problem, pointing out that during the last rain there was a problem. She was also concerned ab~ut children coming onto her property. She asked about the riding trails and whose responsibility it wili be if someane gets hu~t ~r one of her children gets kicked by a horse. Also~ 5-23-77 ~ ,» ~ .,+~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAy 23~ 1977 77-357 EIR NEGATIVE UtCLARAI IUNL ktCLA55, ]6-]]-56, TT~6 ~unlii~uncl) she was ~oncerned abaut her property value being decreased. Mr. Lowry ~ointcd out that any horse trails dPdicated to the City of Anaheim are covered by the City of Anahelm Insurance. He stated that a report has been prepared by the Park and Recreatlon Department which will indlcate v~rl~us methods of Financing of these trails, Chairman Tolar a~sured Mrs. Gib,on that the problem wlth the drainage will be resolved before the plans are approved~ and she replied th~c she felt most of the burden for the drainage had been placed on Mr. C~~~d's property. Ms. Gibson stated she wa5 nul ~yainsl Jevrloping the property~ but w~s concerned about what it will do to her property. She su99ested the engineer include the bottom portion of her property at the samP tlmr,. She stated that eventually they would lil.e to put a couplc~ of gr~~~p homes on the bottom of chat property. Mr. Morris stated they fully intended to create full drainage; that they are aware of [he problem and will takc c.are of it. Mr. Ken Shelby~ Orange County Schcol Qist~ict, Pianning, st~ted the District requests that this Commission ~lace a condi[i~n on ~pproval that the develops; meet and confer with the Planning Dep~rtment of the District to ciiscuss a n-eans of offsetting the impacc of their developmPnt. Ne stated che District h~~s limiced resources and capital to supply studenc space for the developments being planned. Chairman Tolar ask~d Mr. Shelby if he was suggestiny that the Planninq Commission attach as a part of ourayreement that the developer meet with the Orange School District for some type of flat fee per lot. Mr, Shelby referred to a section on density af the Code giving the Commission the riyht to make such a condition, Chairman Tolar stated he would n~t mz;,e that a condition of approval since 2/3 of pruperty taxes go to schools already. He stated he was not pleased with what is happening wich the School District. M~.Shelby stated the School District needs t~ find an :,utlay and that h~meowness have a choice where to buy a home. Any development in the Santa Ana Canyon will further impact the schools and the Schooi District is making every effort to find funds to provide student space. Cormissioner Barnes stated she was glad to see Mr. Shelby at the meeting~ but felt it was about two years too late. She stated she realized the problem the schools were having wiCh get2ing bonds passed. However, whenever a develop- ment has come before us up until recently, there w;,5 never any mention that there would be any problem with the schools, She wondered why the School District didn't say, "We don't have enough schools," She stated she was glad to see thern finally speaking up. Comm~,sioner Herbst pointed out he had attended meetings previously with the Scho~l District and pointed out the long range growth ~~lanned and suqgested school sites and tried to get input from them and the problem lies with them, 5-23-77 ~ ~" ~M / ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN6 COMMISSION May 23, 1971 77-358 EIR NEGATIVE D~CLARATION, RECLASS. 6-7 -,~fi, TT 9876 continued) Chalrman Tolar suggested the Commission get together with the District officials in a work session to wUrk out the problem. The Chairm~n ciosed the publlc hearing, Commissioner Linr~ pointed out that he hoped when the r~al estate penplr sell a home in the Santa Mna Canyon area thak they tell the homeowner his childrsn will prabably be bused to anot~ier area, ur go to school in portable classrooms or ln double sessions. Commissioner Herbst asked Mr, Morris why the zanin~ reclassification was not for RS 22000~ and Mr, Morr(s slated it for ec~nomic reaso~s because of the grading problem and stor•m drains. Commissioner Herbst felc the zoning should be RS 22,000 because of the density which creates more demands for utilitics and schools, Mr, Morris pointed out th~it surrounding prppertics have been rezoned and felt this pr~~perty is sandwiched between Chose propcrtics, He pointed out that thc District office had been contacted and it was indicat~d th~re was no problem at the schools affected by th~s development. Commis~ioner Barnes asked about plans for the drainage ar~d Mr. Morris' engineer~and Jay Titus, Gngineer, explained the plans for the storm drains, wir.h P1r. 71tus pointing out water runoff from the Gibson's property would ha~e be engineered from her proper~y t~ the storm drain, but this was nat Mr. Morri~~' ~cm ~ern. The easement was discussed with Mr. Titus pointing nut the 30 foot easement would not be changed. He stateci a 24' easement with 18' of pavement is required. Commissioner Barnes stated this iand i~ surrounded on three sides by RS••7200 and felt this is a good use for the prop~rty. ACTION Commissioner Barnes offered a motion. seconded by Commi~sioner Linn and MOTION LARRIED {5-~) ~Cortxnissioner Nerbs[ voting no and Chairman Johnson absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commi~,sion has reviewed the subject proposal on proper[y consisting of approximately 4,2 acres located approx- imately 179 feet south of tfie centerline of Palo Alta Drive and does hereby recommend to the City Cauncil of the City of Anaheim that a Negative Declar~tion f'rom the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report be approved for the subject property on the basis that there are no individual or cumuiative adversA impacts on the environment due t~ the approval of this Negative Deciaration Since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property as a transition area between estat.e density residential and low density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal and the Initial Study submitted by khe petitio~er indicates no significant adverse environmental impact; and that the Negative Declaration subst.antiatiny the foregoing findings is on file in the Planning Department. Commissioner Barnes offered Resolution PC 77-114 and rrx~ved for its passage and adoption, that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that Petition far Reclassifica- 5-23-77 .» ... ~:~ 5.-~ ~" MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 23~ 1917 11,359 EIR NEGATIVE ~ECLAkATIONy RECLASS ~6-77-,~6, TT 98 6 c;ontinucd tici No, 76-77-56 he approved, granting uses that have been granted to surroundin~ property owners and becausP of flat terrain of site~ subJ~ct to Interdepmrtmental Committee RccnrtmendAt(ons. The foregoing res~lutlon ~vas passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ LINN~ TOLAR~ KiNG, DAVID NOES: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST ABSTAIN: COMMISSI~NERS~ NONf. ABSEN7 : COMMISSIONERS: JOHNSON Commissioner Nerbst suggested that when the houses are sold~ the buyers are informed that the abutting propert(es do have the right to -aise horses. Chairman Tolar asked that the stipulation be added that the applicant wiil correcC drainage prablem in relationship to abutting property. ACTION Commissiorser Barnes offered a mo2ion, seconded by Cortmissioner l.inn and MOTION CARRIEO (5-1) (Commissioner Nerbst voting no and Chairman Johnson absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed subdivison, together wi[h its desbgn and improvement, is consistent with the Gity ~f Anaheim'~ Genera7 Plan~ pu~suant to Governent Code Section 66473.5; a'~d does, therefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract 987b, subject to the following c~nditions: 5-23-77 ~ MINUTES~ GITY PLANNING COMMISSIUh, Ma;~ 23, ~917 .~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7G-77-5G ANO TEtJTATIVE MAF AF TRl1CT N0. 3a7c (Continued) 77-360 .~.r~...r~ o.. 1. ThaC the approvel of Tantative Map of Tract No. 9~7~ is granted suoJect to the epproval of Reclassification No. 76-77-56. 2. That shoulci tliis subdivislon be developed as more than one subdivision~ each subJivtstan therenf shall be svbrnitted in tentativa form for approval. 3• That all lots wiChin this tract sholl be served by underground ukilittes. 4. That a finel tract map of subject property shall be subrnltted to and approvesd by the City Counctl end then be recorded in tt~e Office of the Orange County Recarcfer. 5. That the covenants, con~iitlons~ and restrlcttons shall be submltted to and approved by the City Attorney's Offlce and City Engtneer prtor to City Council approval of the ftii~l tract map and~ further~ thAt the approva.d covenants~ conditions~ and restricti~ns sh~:~l be rec~rded concurrently with the final t~ect map. 6. That prior to filing the final tract map, th~ applicant st~oll submit to the City Attarney for approval or clental a complete syn~psis of the proposed functioning of the operating carporati~n includtng~ but not limited to, the articles of incorporatlan~ bylaws~ p~oposed rr~thods of management~ bonding to Insure maintenance of common property and buildings, and such other ir~formation as the City Attorney rnay desire to protect the City~ i[s citlzens, and the purchasers of the project. 7. That street nanxs shall be approved by the City Pianning Oepartment prior to approv~l of a final tract map, &. That tFie owner(s) of sub,Ject prope~ey shall pay t~ the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and r•ecreati~n in-lieu fees as detrrmined Co be appr~p~iate by the City Council, said fees to bc paid at the [ime the building permit is issued. 9. That dralnaye of said property shall be dlsposed uf in a manner setisfactory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of tf~e siCe~ sufficient grading is required to necessita[e a grading permit, no work on grading will be pe nnitted be;ween October 15th and April 15th unless all requtred off-si[e drainage fac(lities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided the Cixy that sucr- dralnage fecilities wili be completed prtor to October 15th. Necessary right-ot-way for off-site drainage fac:flitles shail be dedicated to the City~ or the City Council shall have inittated condemnatlon proceedings ther~for (the costs of which shall be borne by the developer) prior to tF~e commencement of ~rading operations. The required ciralnage faciliti~s shall be of a size and ty~e sufficient to carry runoff waters o~igtnating from higher properties througn sa(d p~operty to ultimate disposa) as approves! by the Clty Engtneer. Said drainage facilittes shall be ttie firsc item of construction and sf~all 6e completec! and be functio~al throughout the tract an~ from the downstrNam bou~cJa ry of the property to the ultima,: potnt of disposal prior to the issuancs of any final building inspections or occupanc~f permits. Drainage district refmbursement agreements may be mede ava(lable to the developers of said property upon their reques~t. SJ23/77 ~ k: ..a MINUTES~ CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ May 23~ ~~17 RECIASSIFICATION N0. )! ~!-y~ ANp TENT~ E NAN UF TRIICT N0. 98/6 (Gontlnued) 77-361 10. That yradlny~ excavation, and all other construction actlvtt(es shall bo conducted in such a manner so as to minimtz~ the possibiltty of any stlt artginating f~om thls proJect being carried Into the Santa An~ aivnr by sto rm wetcr originating frorn or flc~wing through this proJcct. 11. If perman~nt street name slyns t~avc not bRen installed~ temporary street naene s(gns shAll be Installed prlor to any occupancy. 11. 7hat the own~r(s) of subJect property shell pay appropriate drainage asses sment fees and sewer assessment fees tu tt~ City of Anaheim as determined by the City Enqlneer prior to approval of a final tract map. 13. Tha~ final spectfic plot, floor anJ elevotion plen~ sf~all be subm(tted to the Pl~.~ing Commission and/or City Counc(1 far revlew ~+nci approvel~ prior to the Issuance of uuilding permlts. 14. In accordancF wich tlie requirements of 5ection 18.02.047 pertaining to the initiai sals of resi~iential homes in thc Cfty of Anaheim Planning Area "B", the seller shall provide each buyer with written information concerning the Anaheim Generel Plan and tt~s existiny zoning within 300 feet of the boundarlcs of s ubJect tract. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAfT REPORT N0.1g8 04'VER: JAWFING INVESTMENTS, 1045 Atiantie Ave.~ VARIANCE N0. 2~ 1~806, !on9 Beach, CA 90801. DEVEI.qPER: TENTATIVE MAP 6F TRACT N0. ~721 BOULEVARG DEVELOPMENT 777 S, hSain, Ste. 106~ ~~ Orange, CA g26h8. ENGINEER: RONALD MA RTIN b ASSOC., INC. 1896 Newport Blvd., Costa Mes~3, CA 92627. Request far waiver of req uire- ment that all lats rear-on an arterial highway and tentatitietract reyuest for 45-lot, 44-unit subdivision on a parcel of iand consisting of approximately 25.1 acres located on the northeast and southwest sides ofFairmont B~ulevard~ 7Q~0 feet so~~th of S anta Ana Canyan ~oad. Ther•e werc two persons appeariny in opp~~s~tion. Thc:y waive~ the reading ot the Staff report; however,it is referre _o and made a part of the minutes, Mr, Richard King stated these would be equestrain estates; [hat SO of the Eucalyp tus trees to be removed were in the roadways; and that these would be custom bu~it homes designed for the contour of the: land. Jan Hall, 545 Turnbleweed Road. Anaheim, reported she had not received any notice of the trees being removed, She also felt there would be adverse impact on the scl~ool disirict. S~ anne Callahan asked about the landscaping along Fairmount. and who would take e are of it~ with Assuciate Planner Fick replying th8t the slope easement will be main tained. Ms. Cal~ahan asked about the drainage an~i ~~vw it wou~d affect her property. Mr. Shelby from the School Oistrict stated ±here would be an impact on schools. Mr. King discussed Lhe architecture of the project. He stated he would be willin g to listen to any suggestions concerning the tree remo~ '=.~d he also stated he recognized that this wouid have a cumulative affect on ~h~e schools, 5-23-77 ~,«- MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PL,4NNING COMMISSION, M+~y 23~ 19i7 71"~62 EIR 98. VARIANCE N0, 296 dnd TENTATIVE MAP 0_F TRACT 9721 (continued) The publtc hear(ng was closed. Commissiane~ Barnes asked Mr, Kinq a bout the d~alnoge, He explalned the plans to her. Sh~ asked him ebout drainaqe onto the Callahan property and the Englneer and Mr. King ex~latned the plans to Mrs, Callahan and Mrs, Barnes. Commissioner Merbst was concerned a bout khe narrow width of several of the lots. (i,e. Lot 12 with 50' frontage). He was also concerned abc~ut the usable space. Mr. King stated the hom~s woul d be custom bu i 1 t tu ut i 1 i ze the con tc~ur of the land as much as Fosstblc. Canxnissloner Herbst felt the plan should be modified tc~ give klwse n~i~uw lots more frontage. Chairman Tolar agreed in part with C ommission er• Herbst~ but felt the lots shuuld be designed to maintain th~ natu ral topog raphy uf the land. Commissianer Barnes agreed that the narrow lot5 should not be allowed in the RS 22,Q00 zo~e. Commissioner Herbst and Mr. King discussed var(ous lot lines and where lines could be modified. Commissioner Herbst f elt there were toa many lots, Chalrman Tolar slated he liked the plan, b ut agreed there were too many lots. Mr. King asked if the Commissan wo uld Ilke t~ have site development approval on these homes and Commissioner Herbs t replied that he did not. Commissioner Barnes stated she I iked thc development, but agreed that the houses were too close together, Mr. King stated the developer is wi I ling to e 1 iminate one lot and adjust lot 1 ines to suit Commission's desires. Conxnissioner Herbst stated he was c oncern ed about Lots 11 and 12 and Lots 38 b 37 being too narrow. ACTION Chairman Tolar offered a motion,sec~nded by Commissioner King and MOTIQN CARRIED (Chairman Johson being absenx) that Environmental Impact Report No, 198 f~r the proposed developmentof 44-lats on the 25,1 acres located approximately 205~ feet souih of th e c enterline of Santa Ana Canyon Road, having ba~n con;idered this date by the Anaheim City Planning Commission and the Planning Commission f inds that (a) pAtential project-generated indiv~dual and cumulative ad verse +mpa cts have been reduced to an insigni- fican+ leve) due to the equestrian type estate and(b) the si bject EIR No. 198 r~-„orms to the City and State Guidel ines and the State of C~lifornia Envi ranmental Qual i ty Act and, based upon the foregoing information ~ the P1 ann i ng Commi ss i on does hereby recorrrnend to the C i ty Counc i 1 of the C i ty of Anaheim that thcy certify said EIR No. 198 is in compliance with said Environmental Quality Act. Copies of EIR No. 198 are on file in the Planning Department at City Hall, 5-23-77 ~. • . '`~. ~~, ~, i ,~ MINUTES; ANAHEIM CITY PLANN{NG COt•1ht{~SION~ Moy 2S, 1~77 77-363 EIR 98, VARIANCE N0. 2426 end TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT 4721 contlnued) ACTION Chatiman Tolor offerod Resolution No. PC 17-115 and moved for its passage and adoption, that the Anaheim Ci.y PlAnning Commisston does hereby approva Petitian for Variance No. 2926~ sub,ject to Interdepartmental Gc~mittee Reeommendations. On roll coli~ the foregoing resoluCion was passed by the fullowing voCe: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLAR, KING, I.INN, P^2NES, DAVID, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST ABSTAIN: CUMMISyIONEkS: NONE ABSENT: GOMMISSIONERS: JQHNSON ACTION Chairman Tolar offered a motion, soconded by Commissioner Kin,~~ and MOTION CARRIED (Chairman Johnson being 3bsent and Canxnissioner Herbst voting no), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission doas hcreby approve the tree removal plan submitted for Tract No. 9721 specifying that a maximurr~ of fifty (50) specimen trees, as defined by the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone standards pertaining to Tree Preservation, sht+ll be removed and replant on a 1:) ratio with trees From the tre~ replace- ment list. ACTION Chairman Tolar offerF' a moticn, ~oconded by Commissioner King, and ~ MOTION CARRIED (with ~ommissioner Herbst voting no and Chairman Johns~n absent) that the Anahoim G~ty Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposcs~ subdlvisian, together with its design and improvement~ is cunsistent with the City of Anaheim's Gcneral Plan, pursuent tb~~overnment Gdde Section 66473.5; snd does, therefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 9721, subject to petit~oner eliminating one lot, specifically lot line betr.een Lots ll and 12, and subject to the following conditions: 5-23-77 ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 2~~ 1977 77-364 EIR NO_1g8! VAaIANCE N0~ 2926 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 97Z1 (Continued) 1. That tho approvai of Tantative Map o! Tract No. 9721 t~ granted sub~ect to the approval of Reclassiftcation No. 72-73l51. 2. That shouid th(s subdiv(sior be daveloped es more then one subdiv(slon~ each subdlvlsion thareof sl~al) be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That in accordancc with City ~ ou ~cll ppllcy, an open decoratlve wall shall be constructed at the top ot slope near the norcheast property linQ on Lot Nos. 1 and 44~ said wall separating po ~tlans of satd lots and Fsirmont Eioulevard. Reasonable landscaping~ including Irr(getton facilities~ shall be Inst~lled in the uncemented partion of the a ~terial highway parkwAy the full dlstance of sald wall; plans for said landscapin g ta be submittcd ta end subJect to thc approvai of the Superlntcndcnt of Parkway Maintenancc; and follo~rin~~ Installntion ~nd acceptence~ the Ctty of Aneh~im shai) assume the resp~nsibiliky for matntenance oP sr~ i d 1 endscap i ng . 4. That all lots within this trac t shall be served by underground ~atllittes. $. Thal a flnal tract roap uf subJect property shal+ ~~c submitt~d to and spp~oved by the City Councit and then be r e corded Iri the Offtce of the Orenge County Recorder. 6. That any proposed covenants~ conditions, and restrtctions shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attor n~y's Office prtar to C(ty Cauncil epproval of the final tract map and~ further~ that the approved wvenants, condittons~ and restrfctions shall be recorde d cancurrently with the final tract map. 7. That prlor to ffi(ng the ftnal tra~t r~p, the applicant sh~il submit to the City Attorney for app~oval or denial a complete synopsis of the proposed functiontng of the operatinq corporation i~cluding~ but not limlted to~ the articles of tncorporation~ bylaws~ proposeci methods of management~ bonding to tnsure n~aintenance of common property and buildtngs~ and such other informstion as the City Attorney may desire to p rotect the CitY, its citizens, and the pur~hasers of the praJect. 8. That slreet names shall be app roved by thc City Pla~ninq Department prior to approvdl of a final tract map. 9. That the owner(s) of subject p ~operty shal) pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Counc~l~ saiJ fecs to be paid at the tir~e the building permft is issued. 10. That Jrainaye of said property shal) be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the C(ty Englneer. If~ in th ~ prepara[ion of the site, sufficient grading is required to necessitate a gra ding permit~ no work on grading will be permitted between October lyth and Aprii 15th unless ail required off-site dralnage facilities have been insialle d and are operative. Positive assurance shall f~e provided the Ctty that such d ~ atnage facilities will be campleted prlor ta October 15th. Necessary righ t-of-way for off-site dratnage fac(lities shall be dedicated ~o the City, or the Clty Gouncil shall have initiated condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be barne by the developer) prior to the commencement of gradin g operations. The requi'ed drainage facilities 5/23/77 'l.. MINU'I'~ ~~ ANAI{~IM CTTY PLANNII~3 CONDAIS.~ZON ~ M~y 2:~ , 1=17' 77-;j~~~ EIR N0. 19f3 ~ VAEtIANC6 N0. 2926 and TtCNATNF MI11' OF 'I'F~ACT NC1. 9721 (oontinuHC~ ) sh~a71 br, r~f ~ i.ze and t.y~e ^ui't'iulent, t,o rnrry runc~ff watHr:. or•iQina~.ir« ''~~~m hiRher ~ropert,ies Lhrovqh s~id propPrty to ,~1tSm~~tr d~:;po:;al nn np~~rr~~~od by t,hA Cit.y G;nRine~r. ,~aici clrninR~rA 1'eoili+,~ :a ::hnll h~~ ',hc~ t'irnt, it,em c~f r~.n^t•rn~t,l~ri nn~i nha'll t~R r,~~mrlet.~ri An~i l~o funotionn: t,hrouWhout ~.hc+ tre~r,t. -+nd fram the rlown:~t,re~sm boundFlry nf t,he propc~rt,y to '.hy ul! imet,A point. of dispor~nl prior ~•~ t,h~ i;-runnr.~ at' nr~y !'Snt+l bu~lciir~~; .tn:~t~nc~.t,lon:~ ur occ~.i{~~Ar~uy permlt,s. pre~,nege di:~!.ri~•~, r•nir~hur:i~~m~nf. n~rr~+r~m~nt,:; m~y 1.~H itusd~! f~vailaLl~ tc~ t,he deuoloper^ of :~Ai~i pt•o~erty upc~r; ~hF~1r~ z~nquF~:;t.. 11 . rr«t H;radinF, oxc,nvn! ion, nnr3 n11 c~'h~r ron:~+~•uc~ ion n-•? ivi!.1~ ^:'hall '~e cnr,ducted in .,u,.h ~ mn::no~, c~c n" ,~ mirimi•rf, ~}ie ~,r,...,ihil!}y ~~f nr~y ~=il.~ oriKinnl,itiF 1'-•orn thi;a pro,~en' bAin,, uarrled ~ilt,~~ tt~~~ ;a-it.e AnA Ei~lvei~ t,y :;t,orm wRt,er orS~?1n~s?,inK ti•om or iiowin~* ',iir.ouFth ?,tii;~ F~~•ojec•. 1~'. It' E,ei•manent liif'6Ht. nn~ne :~ign:, h~v~~ not LF~r~n in:~tall~d, t,ornponnr•y :~t.r~~ot ntttnt~ 31gn:: ;;hA:ll b~+ in:~t,al.lt~d E~ric,r 'a nny p~~~~taE~nncy~ 13. That, 1,hn ownor(s) uf ;~ut.~,}f>c~: prc~p~rty tilinll ptty r~~~E•ro~~rist,r; clrninc~~e a;~ec~^~.~ient t~H9;; t,a t,h~ C1.ty oi' Anahei~u t~;3 ci~>t,e~rrn:tln~1 t;y ~.ii~~ C1:;; Ii;n~rii~c~eir• E>>~ie~i~ t,c., ~pp:~oval of n final. trtic•t ranF~. 1~•. Thc~t i'ina]. ;;(~ecif'ir, E lot,, 1'l00~• ~ind ~~l~~vati~~i; ~ LRII.~ :'YIR.~ l t.c~ :;tibn~itt.ed tc, the ~Ifl(iI)111~; CUf11I11~:1:J11~I1 [lli(j/Vi' ('.~!.;f ~,Vl.l[l~:.jl ~~~~t' I'~+iVtfW Fl(U3 ft4~~i~•UVNL~ E" lU~' 1.iJ 1~}IEl l:i:;Uf.11l1't) U1~ t1U~.~d~.:~P 4't'f'fI11 ~:i~ :t.j. z[1 QCCOt'C~Atli'6 W~~,tl ~•r10 t"(t[~ll~:'EftI1t3I:t.:i i.> I~ ..itiCt.iv[: IU.Uc'~V~~~ ~~f3!'LR1fi~T~~' `,~) ~t1H init,.t~l :;c,]~3 oi' ;•e:;i~i t~nt.ic~l. }~om~+:' it~ f ta~~ Ci t.y a1' AnFt;~~i;n P113r~nin~? AreA „p" ~ thn :e11e~• :;t:all ~n~~~vi~1e each t~vy~~c~ wi*,t; w~•it:tr,n ii:1'orm!~'.i.or. ~•;~ct~~~r'[-~1-~f*, +.he AnahPin~ C}eneral Plr~n csnd tne exi.:tit~F; ;~.cniiiv wit.l~In 3~~~~ :'~~t. ~.~f' t.1~e i~o~andarie::~ o;' ;uh,j4ct, trao t. 16. Z'h~t on~ lct t~e ~ I ~Ri~f181,0Gi , r,~,Ej • i.''i ~'n11Y ~:o'_ 7 in<• t~~~t.weon I~~,t,:3 .1 b! 2. CtEPOR'TS AIJD RECOM`t~tdD/!"i ION;' Commi:~:,ion~~~ Kin; offer~d e:no;.ioti 1c nccept. :~'.~t'!' rNr.ommoricls},iot~:: 01' t,hF ~:~ue3t for EIR n~~?ei.ive declaration for ~3 ~-1c,'. r!~:,i~jcinti~+l ~~nrc,el me~ rJo. ~~4 a;, ._3U ,~ . Country Hi J l Ronri , ar:d 1~OTIClN CA[;RIb'.D (C~-,,i; (wi f,h Chair~an ~T hn:~on ab^ent ). Commi:~~inner Hert,:~t c~'fer~d e mo?ion 'u ad,jo~~~rt: +.ho mHetinc a'. f~;~ ~ F.m., seconder by Commis ~ioner Davin , and MO'1ION CARFiIED if~_~ ` wi t.h Chairm~r~ J'~~hnson ab:~ent. Ro~.~.,~;tP~ally submit,ted, ~~ ~ • Seoretery to Planniug Commission Edith L. Eiarri:~