The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1977/10/10C 1 ty I~a i l Anahetm~ Califor~i~ Octobor 10 ~ 1'377 Rf:GULAR MEETI tJG OF TNE At~AHE I M C I TY PLAf~N I NG COM111S5I Ot~ REGULAR - The re9ul~r meetln~,~ of the: Anaheim City Planning Commisslon wes callad to MEETING order by Chairm~n Tolar at 1:35 p.m.~ October 10~ 1971~ in the Council Chamber~ t~ quoruin bein!~ present. PRESENT - CNAIRMflN; Tolor CGNMISSIONi.RS: 1)avid~ Herbst~ Johnsun, King Commtssioncr Linn arrived ot 3:Oc~ p.m. ApSEPJT - CUMMISSIOIJERS; aarnes ALSO - Jack Whitc PR~SENT Ann i ka Santal~~l~t i Jlm Kewamura Larry Sears Jay Tltus J. J. Tashiro Edith tlarris AssistAnt City Attorney Aasistant Dlrcctor for Zoning Assistant Traff(c Engincer Civil Englneerin9 Assotiatc Office Enylnecr Assistant Plann~r Planniny Comnission Secretary PLEUGE. OF - The Pledye of Allegiai~ce to tt~e Flay of the United States of Ame~ica was ALLEGIANCE led by Gci~ifssloncr Herbst . APPR4VAL OF - Comnissioner David offtred a rnation~ secancied by Commissioner King and MINUTES NOTIOfI CAkRIEU (Commissio ncrs 8a~nes and Linn being absent)' that thQ minutes of the Sept~mber i'1.~ 1~71 meetlny be auproved as submEtted. I TEM t~0. 1 ~ it E~ VE UEGLAWITIOF~ REAUVERTISEU PUBLIG HEARING. OWNER; EASTER RECL ~SI CA ION N0. ~1 ~71•U3 ISIAND, LTU.~ 293> East Vine Street~ "L. Oranye~ V I NCE ~30. 19 ~ Gl1 ;2Eifi~. AGLIIT: Jl1ME5 KINCANN0~1~ 3~31 MacArthur Boulevard~ I1206~ Newport Beach~ C~ 92G6o. Sub~ett property is an i~re~~ularly~shaped parcel of land consisting of approxtrnately 1.~ acre:s jocated at the northeast corner of Sanca Ana Canyon Road and Pinney Urive~ haviny approxima te frontayes of 777 feet on the north sidP of S~nt3 A~ a Canyon Road and 92 feet ~n the east siJc of Pinney Drive. Property presentiy cl ass i f i ed RS-A-h3,^JO(SC) (RE.S I Df.~~TIAL/AGRI C~1LTUftAL-SCENI C COR~ti DOR OVERLAY) ZONE. REQUESTEU CLASSIFICATIOtJ; RS-7200(SC) (P,EStDEr~TIAL~ SINGLC-FAMILY~SCENIC C~~RRIDOR OV~RLAY) ZOt~E. REQUCST~~ VARIANCE: WAIVEh OF REiZUIREMENT TIIAT ALL LOTS R,EAR-Otl ARTEP,IAL STREETS, TO ESTALLISII A 6-LOT, RS-7200(SC) SULtUIVISIO~l. ~ubject p etition was continu~d from the meetings of July 13 and August 29, 1977~ at the request o f the petlt(oner. 77-b37 10/10/71 MI NUTES ~ ANAHE I M C I TY PLANN 1 NG COMMI5S I ON ~ October 10 ~ 1977 77-638 EI_R NEGATI VE D~CLARATION. R~CLl1S5! FICATION N0. 76-]7-63 ANU VARIANCt NU. 'ly4b (tont inued; There was one person (ndicating his presence in opposltton to ~ubJect pet(tton, and o~e peraon indiceted I~torest~ not opposition~ end although the st+~ff report f.a tl~e Plenning Cammtssi~ Jated October 10~ 1977 ~+as not read a t the public hs~ring~ tt ts referred to and made a part af the minutes. I t was noted that the li l l I an~l Cany~n Mun l c( a l Advt sory Conmi t tee (IIACMAC) hes rev i ewed the subJe et proJect on two occaslons and that a t thelr September 27th meet(ng~ wlth 11 members presant, thc Committee voted unanimously to rec.ornmend denial of Reclasstfication No. 76-77-G3 and Uartencc No. 2~4C~. The Comml ttcr, fecls thls ls a substendard pareei of I an~f and i s not su I ted for RS-7204 zon 1 ng ~+~nd t he i r roa~ans for recanr~e~d i ng den I a 1 included: a) thc homes being too close to Santa Ane Cenyon Roed wlth iittle or no so u nd attenuation prop~sed~ b) a private street betng rnatnteincd by stx homes in t.he medtum price ran ge would be a ourden on the: homeowners and doub~„ taxatlon for them~ and c) the prox(mity of the homes to the developn~ent to the north ~ unnacceptnble and the residents in thosc homes are opposed to the proJect, James Kincannori~ ayent for tht petitianer~ staied the pl,~n i, besically tn conformanee with the General Plan requ(rernents; that the areas to the north ~dJacent to the subJect property are zoned sinyle-family, detached~ RS- 7 2Q0 minimum lot .ize; that the mintmum lot sizc of thls development exceeds thc City requt~ ements anci is 775~ square feet~ with the largest lot being over 10,000 squarc feet. He i ndicated these figures are net areas and not gross areas; that these units are basically single-family~ single-story struceur e s wlth a Jenslty factor of 3.2~3 units pcr acre, He stated ch~ zone betng requested ts ccxnpatible with the General Plan; thax the d~veloper is dedicattng 18 feet for a parkway buffer zone alony tiie Sa~ta Ana Canyon Expressw~y; thot the ~xprc~sway has a sp~ed 1 imit of k5 m( les per hour and that therr. is no futur~ expanslon planned for Santa Ana Canyon Road; tha t the 18-foot requirement was strtctly for a landscaped buffer zone and Is pa(d for by th e developer. HP stated tha~ a 6-f~ut naasonry wall is proposed for sound attenuation. Mary Din ndorf~ President of tl~e Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Associatlon~ s!a~ed sh e was concerned abaut this proJect because in the pas t she has been opposed to strip comme ~ clal zoning and that this is strip resioent(al zonin g. She w3s alsa concerned about the a ccess coming ou t of the developmenc onto Ptnney Drive w(th a l~ft-turn pocket. She felt it ~ould be ve ry d(fficult tu get across if there a ~e cars stopped in the left-turn poeket. She s[ated that P(nney Drtve is a dead-end with ~A way to thc free.wray. She pointed out that traffic from Pinney D~tve woulJ have to go through the Celestlal Tract imm~ediately adJacent or meke a U-turn near ttie ftre station. She felt the traffic situation is very hazardous at this particular location. She was opposed to any devetopment with private streets and particulariy tf~is one. She asked the Traffic Eng(neer to explain the trafflc situatian. Jim Kawamura~ llssistant Traffic Engineer~ explai ned that the Traffic Engineer has ~eviewed this particular developmen[ on more than occasio~~ and tt is his opin(on ihet the street access f rom Pfnney Drive would be too close to S anca Ana Canyon Rord and there woutd be quite a number of turnir,g conflicts with respect to the locatlon of r.hat prlvate street. Mary Uinndorf stated she rea) ized this was a hardshlp piece of property and the har~ship wes crea ted by Lhe SAV I cana 1, She sugges ted the P 1 ann i ng Commi ss ion f i nd scxne way to give the property owner tax relief and stated s h e d1d not feel this development sho uld be allawed. 1oJ1o/71 MINUTE~~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMfSSION. Octob~r 10~ 1977 jJ-6;9 EIR NEGATIVE ~E_CLARATION. RCCLASS IFIC11T10!d NO. 76-77-63 ANO VARIANr,F NO. 2g46 (contlnued) Mr. Kincannon commentod th~t Mrs. Dinndorf's basic concarns were regarding the tr~ffic and that (n rnvlewlny this with staf f in the Traffic Department~ one of the recomme~dattons was tl~e constructtoi~ of a medtan strip down P(nney Drtve to the (ntersactinn which would eliminate thes left-turn traffic~ but that because of tha fire statian. the Fire Department wes opposed to a median strtp, M e statcd that if it were posslble to construct a medlan strip that wauld be compatible wi th the Flr~ D~partment~ thc Jevelapcr would not be opposed to doing thls. Edward Opman~ 530G Gerda Drive~ ~ ndicated he lived behlnd tl~~e subJect property and stated tic had urlylnally been opposeJ to this proJ~ct but after secing the plans ~nd talktny with Mr. Klncennon~ f~e felt it would Lncrease the value of his propcrty; that this area has been an eyesore and tl~e ci i tch nas been a p 1 ace for peap 1 e to throw the i r yarb~ge and a place where others parke;d ti~eir hurse trailers~ etc. Ne in~iicated that Mr. Kincannon had s tated the ro wou 1 d be a f~nce a i c~ny tf~e Nropc; r ty 1( ne and tha t the ex. i s!' i n~ fence i s I n bad condltion. Mary Lou Rogers~ 107 Orange Hill lane~ stated hcr propcrty wac just above the dcvelopment~ and es far as ~n increaSC ur dec rcose in land value she did nnt knaw but that she did not think the drvelopmenc woulci be detractir~c+ from her vtew~ etc. She stated ghe wes concerned about th~ [raffic wlth tl~e fire station and the chlic;ren crossing the street going to schoal~ etc.; that sh~ did noi think one more street being added would be a good s(tuatipn; and that there are a l~t of parents who walked tl~eir children to school now b~cause of the fire station haza rd, She in~icated she was not complaining abaut the fire station nolse and realizcci they are safe drivers and are doln~ their Job~ but did not thlnk this development shoulci be allawecf at this location, and stated ~he would not buy one of these homes. Mr. Kincannon poin[ed out that thcy were buiiding only six homes at this site and that the traffic generated from six homes would not be more than six trtps per day per home, or a tota) of 36 trlps per day~ and that would not make a signlflcant impact an the intersectlon. He seated that a driveway has been located to the furthe~est northerly point on the property and there is no access allowed to Santa Ana Canyon Road because it is an e;cpressway. THC PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEL'. Chairman Tolar steted this ls ~ very unusuai piece af property and he was sympathet(c to the idea that some type of deve 1 apment wou 1 d be dc+ne. t~e fe 1 t a res i d=nt i a l use was the only use hF could utew which wo u ld be compatible with the area sur~ounding the property but felt it should oe less dense tha~ the proposed proJect. He agreed with the gentlaman about the appearance of the property and fel t i t must be taken care of, Commlssioner Jonnson stated he a ppre~iated the Trafflc Engineer's comments regarding the access and .~at good planniny a ~ d good engtneering forced him to say publicly that it wauld be wrong to put an access on Pinney Drive, but thet the Planning Commission must look at the facts and coula ~ot tell the property owner xhat he has no access to his p~operty. He asked the Traffic Enginecr if there was a better place on the properCy for the access~ and Jim Kawamura sta ted there was not. Commissioner Nerbst asked how th e petitioner inte~ded to buffer the homes fran the street; that a 6-fcaot block wall with ttse property being level with Santa Ana Canyon Road would not ~ttenuate the sound in th~ b ack yards. 10l10/77 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITV PLANNING COMMISSiON~ October 10~ t971 11-6W0 EIR NECATIVE DECLARATION. RECLASSIFICATION 110. 76-77•6~ AND VARIANCE Np. 2g46 (continued) Mr. Kincannon steted thet an Acoustical engineer would be retain=d by the petitioner to make e determinat on as to what measures would be nec~ssary to canply wlth City pollcles. Ho stated that I~sulated walls and i~sulated gless fo~ the windows were some of thc things that would be Gone~ and statcd that portlons of the back yerds would be depressed approxlmetely 3 feet and with a 6-fc~ot earthen berm combtnation wall and a 3-foot differontlal~ ~elt the soun~ would be attenuated. Gommissloner Nerbst indicated he was concerned about the r~oisP tn the back yards and not in the homes~ and Mr. Kincannon stated that there would be an 18-~foot landscaped buffor =one. Commissloner Herbst stated the landscaped buffer r.one does n~t attenuate sound~ nor does a 6~foot wall~ and that a landscaped berm would nced to be 12 f~et high from street level in order to attcnuate sound. Mr. Kincannon stotr.J that tt~e pet(tioner wauld be willing to do whatever the acoustica) engtneer reconxrends to attenuate thc ~s~und in order to mect City star,dards. Commissioner Nerbst s[ateJ he would bc curious to know how thc sound would be attenua;ed b~fo~e he could vate on the proJect. Mr. Kincannon stated that they had dreided to request the reclassification before hav(ng the sound study prepared duc to the cost. Commissioncr Nerbst sta:ed he felt the petltlorier had the ~art before the horse; that the saund study sfiould have been prepared before the request f~r reclassificatton was made. Chairman Tolar indicace~ he did not necessarily agree w(th Commissioner Herbst; that the developer would be required to meci alt Code requirern~nts and that this was an engineertng decision. t1e felt that maybe tl~e proJect should be cut down to eliminate one or two of 'he lotS on the west end of thc property~ but as far as the intent of the use of the land~ he felt residential would be compatible wtth the surrounding area and he could no~ envixion any okher use at this location. He stated that a mint-park was not going to happen at this sitc; ttiat probably some type of restdential, whether six or four units, wc~uld be suitable; a~J that hc did agree the 36 trips per day traffic generat(on figure quoted would not impact the traffic significan[ly. Commiss3oner He~bst indtcated I~e agreed that the use for this land shoula be resldentta) but that enyineer(ny problr,ms should have been resolvad before the Commiss~on reviewed this proJect. Ne as{:eJ if the ditch aould be filled in and Mr. Kincannfln replied that lt would. He asked Mr. Kincannon if he had considered the possibility of putttng the houses back the other way and iiaving Che street parallel wlth the buffer in front~ an~ Mr. Kincannon rrplied that he could not front the homes onto Santa Ana Ca~~•;•~n Road. Commissioner Nerbst stated they would not be ~n Santa Ana Canyon Road but the private st~eet; that the houses could back up to the existing resi~lenttal and that the private street coulci be placed on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Commissioner Johnson stated the Commisslon was not suggesting this was a better solutlon but wondered if the petitioner had looked at the possibiltty ~f reversing the project. 10/10/77 ~ ~ MiNUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Octobcr 10~ 1977 )y-(,4t EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLA511~ICATION N0. ]6-~J-63 ANU VARIANCE 110. 2~6 (continued) Commisslnncr Johnson alao ~sked about the pcppGr trees whtch were mentloned tn the HACMAC ~eport on the sltas where thc houses are proposad~ and Mr, Ktncannon rcplled that thare was one pepper troe and potnted IC out on the pian. Ccxnmissioncr Johnson asked Mrs. DinnJorf if NACM/1C had anything to offer as an elternet(ve; that they had made a stronG recommendation against the proJect and had paseci problems with no enswc;rs. Mery Dinndorf sCated that thcy harJ looked at tiie property anci that tl~e people who ltve In the Celestia) Tract had not requested a mini-park but certainly felt the City of Anahe(m had some way to den~and that the property owncr clean up the property; that the wced abatemcnt proyram, ftre depArtment~ or• someone sf~ould inslst that thc property b~ cleaned up. She felt tf~'~~ site could possibly be developed residential~ but noc as extensfve as this propusal and felt if the site is considereJ For resldential use that traffic problems should be seriously considereJ~ and pointed out the park~ schools and ffre stat(on In the aroa and the heavily-I~~pacted street whtch exists already. She restated tf~e private street ka be maintalned by the hcxneowners is not a vlable ~~lutlon; she felt this could be a precedent-setting situation. Comnissione~ Nerbst referred to Santa Ana Canyo~ Road and the many inlets and outlets and asked if Santa Ana Canyon Road has been tu~necl back over to the Clty or State, Jay Titus, Office EnyinPer~ replled tfiat this area has been relinqulshed to the City. Commissioner Herbst stated that in look(ng at this Farcel~ if it is ever [o bc used in any manner wl~ether comrnercial or resldenttal~ it must F~ave an access. He asked what would be the obJectlon to allowing one way ln and one way out at the base of the cul-de-sac~ with a swing-in island lnto the property and a swing-out fsland out of ic. He asked what that would do ta the traffic: pattern on Santa Ana Canyon Road with a ccrtaln amount of the third lane for back-up traffic co get onto Santa Ana Canyon Road. Jay Titus stated tha[ he did not think one more entrance or access would mAke that much difference on Sartta Ana Canyon Road but asked the Commission how many they are going to -~ilaw; that we have allowed a few here and there and the more you allow, thc greater number of conflicts yau will have. Comm(ssioner Herbst stated this propert~ dese~ves an access at some point, and instead of pumping the traffic out onto Pinney Drive~ why not put it onto SAnta Ana Canyan Road and asked if it would h~ safer at the stop signal. Jay Titus replied that with the anx~unt of iraffic and the speed involved it would be safer to have the traffic on P(nney Drive. tie also repo~ted that according Lo the Fire Marshal the fire station will be relotated relatlvely soon~ probably within a year, which would remove one point of conflict. Ne stated that the Fire Department is tradtng this ptece af property to the Psrks Department. Commissioner Kin~ asked Mr. Titus to co~m~ent on the proposal that it mighL bP better ta hove the private raadway abutting Senta Ana Canyon Road. Mr. Titus replied that as far as sound attenuation is concerned~ he would agree this would be better and pointed out the developer wnuld probably lose onc or twa lots. Cortmisstoner Johnson asked staff to explain their calculations regarding the gross and net lot sizes~ and Annika Santalahti~ Assistant Director far Zoning~ replied that the actual 10/tOJ77 MI~~UTES~ AWtHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ October 10~ 1977 77-642 EIR N~GATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 76-7z-63 AND VARIAHCE k~. 2946 (continued) usabte area is celculatod minus the private strcets. Commtssioner Johnson replied the dovelopment has met the 7200•aquare foot minlmum even In Lat No. G. Ne stated he would not be In favo~ of this proJc~t if he felt the developor aAS ga(ng to Ja~ th~ lots in~ but felt this prnJect could be approved wlth the conditlon that a soun~l-attcnuation study be b~auqht back to tho Planning Commission for revlew under reports and recommendattons at a later datc. Regarding the sound attenutation~ the Commission discussed a proJect less than a mile away wlth a yrapestake fence along the hi~~hway~ and Commisstnner Johnson polnted out that tf a proJect is developed wlthout waivers~ the Planning Commisslon does not h~ve o chance to ~eview it. f.hatrman Tnlar RtAr~~ hn ~~~~1.1 n~t siipp~rt th~ pro,jpct 85 it is ri~ht na~r; that It m~dc a lot more sense to him for the private drive to abut Senta ~no Canyon Road with the access ;~oint ~n the nor[h end ~f the propcrty; that the develop~er might los~ one lot; and that wlthout knowir what the sound-attenuati~n ~lans are~ he felt if thc street we~e reversed and obutted th lancisc:apcd area h~ c~~uld support thc proJect. A gentleman (n the audlence who had spaken in favar of the proJect asked how close that would put the houses to h(s property. Mtss Santalahti reported there was n 25-foot setback and that the houses would be backyerd-to-backyard. Mr. Kincann~~n p~inted out tliat the current zonlny on the property is RS-A-~~3~000 anei asked the Commisstoi7 to approve the zoninc~ for P,S-7200 subJect to the condition ihat the plans be reviewed prlor to issuance of the buildiny pcrmit. Chairman Tolar indicated that he wc~uld vote for approval only if the motion was tind to speciflc plans. He asked Mr. Kfncannon if he w~uld like to request a continuance or if he wt~uld I(kc the Co~mission to vote on this pr~ject. Commiss0one~ Johnson stated he would try to put through a motion to accept t`~~• proJect as it is~ but did not know wheth~er ar not the motion would fly, ACTI01~: f.ommissioner Johnsan offered a motlon~ secondPd by Cammissioner Kin~ and MOTION CA~R~EU (Lortmissfoners Linn and B~rnes bein~ absent)~ that the Anahe(m C+ty Planning Commtssion has reviewed the subJect proposal to reclasstfy the zoning from RS-A-4?,000(SC) (Residenttal/Agricultural-Scenic Corridor Overlay) ta the RS-7200(SC) (Residential., Singlc-Family-Scenfc Corrtdor Overlay) Zone on the proper-ty consi5ting of approxir~ately 1.3 acres loc~ted at the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Ptnney Drive~ having approximate frontages of 7J7 feet on the north side uf Santa Ana Canyon Road an~ 92 feet on the east side of Pi~ney Drive; and does hereby approve Lhe Negatfve Declaratlon frcxn the requlre~~~ent to pr~pare an environmental fmpact report on the bas~s that t~ere would be na siynificant inclividual or cumulative adverse environmentai impact due to the approval of ttiis Negative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for hillside~ low-clensity residential lbnd uses cortmensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impocts are involved i~ tt~e proposal; that the Initia) StuJy submitted by thc petitioner indicates no siynificant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the Neyatlve Oeclaration substanttating the faregoing findi~gs is on file in the City of Anahei~ Planning Department. ACTION; Commissioner Johns~n offered a resolution xhat the Anaheim City Planning C~ssion does hereby grant Petition for ReclBSSification No. 76-77-63 for a six-lo~~ RS- 7200 subdivision. t0/to/77 MINUTES~ ANAFIEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ October 10~ 1977 7'-64; EIR NCGATIVE_ DECLARATION. A_ SSIFI_CATION N0. 76-77-63 AND vAR_ IANCE NOi2g46 (contlnued) Comnisslonur Herbst stated he c~uld not support tlie motl~n and felt thAt it ts quite possible this is ~esidential property but tt~at he wsnted to be sur~ before he voted for resldentla) development that thG sound could be properly attenuated; that thls Is o f~ardshl~ parcel but it was up to tl~e dnveloper to come up wtth something acceptable before the Commiss(on could votf: on ic. Ne stated that once tl~e zontng (s put on tlie prope~ty~ they could bu(lcl on tt. Gommissloncsr Johnson stated he wished to add thot the sound attenuatlon report come beck to the Ca~xnlasion under reports and reccx~x;Kndatfons at a later date. Corm~(ssioner Ne~bst stated he stii- fe1C this was putt(ng lhe cart before the horse in applyln_y for a zone~ and tl~e developer sh~uld have had e~gtneering probiGms answered. lie s t ated he rrou 1 d ! t I;e tn :,cc ihe :}eve 1 ope r tdke d ~un t i nuance end see f f he cou I d so I ve the problems. Commissloner Ktny staced f~e could go along wtth tl~e motlon because he felt the sound problem would bc controlled by the 8ullding DivisiUn, Chalrman Tolar stated he coulJ not support the motion becaus~e he feit the plan should be redrawn so that the screet (s rcversed. Comnissfoner Johnson asked Mr. Kincannnn if he would prefer a contlnuance or have the Carr~tsslon vote on the project as is. Mr. Klncannan stated he wQUld have no objections to a canCinuance. Commissioner Johnson offered a motion~ seconded by Cerrmissioner Ktng and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Linn and Barnes Ueiny absent)~ that consideratiun of the aforementioned ltem be continued to the regular mceting of the Planning Corxnission on Noven-ber 7~ 1977 in o~drr for the petit(oner to submit revised plans. ITEl1 N0. 2 ENVI~RA~~ ~ N Al IMPACT REPOP,T N0. 2p5 PUBLIC I~EARING. bW~iER: FINAHEIM HILLS~ IIIC., N 9 9 38~ Anaheim Hills P.aad, Anaheim~ CA ~2807, TENTA IVE l1AP OF TRACT N0. 10~32 AGE:~1T: JAMES N. BERRY~ 1~U92 Sky Pa~l; South~ Irvine~ CA 92714. SubJect property (s an i~regularly-shaped parcel of la~d consisting of approximately 12.; acres IocateJ approximately 300 feet south of thn intersection of Nohl Ranch Road and litllc~est Lane~ having a maximum depth of ap~roximately 8~0 feet. a~d being locatecJ approxima[ely ~OQ feet southwesterly of the centerline of Anaheim Hilis Road, Property presently classifiecl RS-A-43~UQ0(SC) (RESIDENTlAL/ AGRICULTURAL-SCENIC CORRI~OR OVERLAY) ZONE. VARIANCE RLQUEST; WAIVER Of (A) RCQUIREMENT TI1AT ALL LOTS A~UT A PUBLIC STRECT~ (B) MII~IMUM BUILDING PAD AREA, At10 (C) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE W I DTN. TENTATIVC TRACT REC~UEST; 4t-LOT~ 3~-Ur~1T~ RS-,000(SC) SUBUiVISIOr~, There was no one indtcating their presence in oppositlon to the .~bject petition~ and although the staff report to the Planning Cortmission dated 4ctober 10, 1977 was nat read at the public hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. 10/10/77 MINUYES~ ANAt1~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ October 10, 1977 77-~4y EIR N0. 205. VARIANGE N0. 2q69 AND TENTAT_iVE_MAP_OF TRACT N0. 10032 (continued) It was noted that the Hill ,~nd Cany~n Municipal Advisory Committee (NACMAC) had r~viewed this proJect aC thclr meeting of September 27. 1977~ dnd with 11 members p~esent~ nlne members had votc~ (n favor of tl~e project subJeck to suggestions that the trsct would be batter servod by elirninetin~3 parktng areas and at least one more lot on cach street to wlden the cul-dc-sac I~ts; an~ that two mcmbers had voteJ agalnst the ~roject, one member statiny lie dfd approve of Che lot s(xes/patios as reyulred by thc Zunlny Code~ and one member lndicated she dld riot lik~ the prUJect at ail. John liates~ architect~ Nrescr~ce~.i plans of the proposecl development, polnttny out the cul- de-sac streets ~nto the pr~j~~ct frcxn a loop road. Ile pointed out the 15-f~ot side yard setbacks betwcen the builcllnys an' compared thl~ wlth ihe RS-!;OQO zoning ordlnancr.s which required 10-foot setbacks. Ne stateJ the reason for ttiis dec(sion wAS because of [he 51~pes wi~ic.i~ {,rG~iuuau ll~~: loryr rc~r y~rds. Hr, 8atc~ state!1 thPy fPlr this wc~uld be reasonablc and took a~vantaye ot tl~e s(de yard cJevelupment and placr.d the living room~ dining room~ I~itchen~ e[c. [a maximize use of tlie side yard. lie stated tha[ the privale space within these are~s is an increase of approximately 1+~0 square fret over the convention~~l R-1 develo~men[, He pointe~ out a cypical unit placed on a typical lot and stated that there was approximately 1`~1~ squ~7rc fect of usablc space; thet the patio home concept al lc~ws the uti 1 ization of tf~e 1!~-foot side yard strtp wtiich gtves 2265 square feet of space. Ne s[ated tha[ basic~lly there are ~0-foot l~ts with 35-foot houses placed an th~-n and tl~at the f1UUSC5 ranye i n s i ze f rur~ 1;,00 square feet to 190~ squere feel. He stated that in discussions w(th th~: Nilt ar~d Canyo~ Muntcipal Advisory Committee (t{ACMAC) they voiced concerns re~aardin~a tl~e parking. Ne -~ointe~ the fragmenteci parking areas on the plan and stated that t'i~ aevelopment excee~is the 5:1 rec~uirern~nt for parking. He indicate~3 there are bay parl.in~ areas witi~tn the cul-cJe-sacs which will miti~7ate the concerns of the HAGMAC Conunittee re~~ardiny people entertainin~a, etc, He stated the staff report containecl a cum~~-ent reyarJiny thu apparent tiyhtness of the lots in the cul-de-sac; that it was thc contentiun of the cievcloper that when on~ drives or walks down the street he ~ioes not fully visualize the sp.+ce betwecn the units. N~ stated that~ in additlon~ Lhe depth of the iots c~lves tl~e develo~er tf~c ability to push and siiove individual units ancl capitalize on lar~~er front yaras than in ty~i(cal R-1 deve{opments, ile stated he felt the developrnent is well within th~ ordinances and yen~rally exce~ds dll requirements. THE PUltLIG NCARING Wl15 CLUSLD. Commissloner Johnson asked Mr. Bates if tt~e units wer~ :et back 'ar enouc~h on [he 40-foot cul-de-sac lots to still have 1~-foc,t sldP yards at t~ie corners. Mr. fiates explalned that the RM-~~000 ordinance reads the setback to the entry must be 8 feet~ plus Z fe~t for eaci~ additional story, plus 1 foot for each additional 15 feet of ienyth~ an~i that these requirements are exceecied as Che lots truncate. tle stated it is conceivable that at a buildiny-to-building relationship there may be a 10-foot setback, wl~ich meets the RS-500~ requirements. Commissioner Johnson stateJ t~~is is not a+~ RS-5000 development but a special RM-4000 development witli larger side yards. Chairman Tolar voiced his concern reyarding the parking in the cul-de-sacs. He stated that ne had calculated the ciistance to be 39~ feet and felt penple would parachute in before they would walk that distance. 1o/to/77 MINUTCS~ ANANtIM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION~ Octobcr 10~ 1917 77-645 EIR N0, 205. VARIANCE N0. 2969 AND TENTATIVE MI1P OF TMCT N0. 100~2 (continued) Mr. Hates stated he had attempted to strike a line af ?00 fcet from each unit. He Indlcated there Is adequate street parking wlthln reasonable dtstance to each of the units and felt thc development compl(es with the requl~ements. Ctielrman Tolar stated hc felt th~: developcr had taken thc best of two worlds, had run two zones tc~gether ancf haJ come out witli a ft~irly decent cievelopment~ but tfiat therr were a couple of problem areas w(th tiie cu{-de-sacs. Cortpniss(oner Nerbst was concernccl about the RM-t-Q00 Zone being utilized withaut ~he add(tionml amenttles beiny 1ncluJc~i. Ne pulnted out that chfs devclopment does not I~ave a sauna bath and has very sn-all back yards~ and a person wcauld not have a place to put In a swimming pool if hc wanteJ to. Nc felt t~~e developer had taken the P,S-;f1~~ Zone and used RIt-400~ ~i~n 1 i~y rcyu 1 re~~~:i~ cs to r«~{.c f t wark and had 1 cf t o~~t thc a~cn i t t c~s of the RM-4~~~ Zone. lie felt this developmeiit would not bc suitable for tf,e canyon .~rea. Nc polnted out that in tlie RS-',0(~0 Zone there is a parking requirement for 5 cars to the lot~ and tha[ the developcr has used strt~et parking to rrKet. thc rec~uirements In this developn-ent. Ne pointed out that somc of thc streets had a 10~-foot rtse between the cars and the houses. Ne stated he had measured the dtstance to be 394 feet from the botcom car to the first house and po(nted out th.it (f someone wAS havinc~ a party with 10 houses on the cul-de-sac~ there would be no plac~ for unyune to park withln decent distances from the houses. He stated that he woul~i never vote for t(' houses on ~~ cul-de-sac; that nnrmally ~ are allowed and the developer has double~i that figure, fie scated that some of the loi frontayes are vE ry narrciw an~ tfiat if thc developcr wanted tract houses~ he should stay wlthin the conflnes of the RS->QUO Zone~ and if he wanteJ townhouses~ fie should stay wlthin the concep[ of the Cownhousc zone with thc amenities. Mr. l3ates statr~i this cievelopment is mixinq twa zones and [hat the RM-~+~~0 Zone requires 2-1/2 parking spaces per unit, and th~t ;:1 ratio had been exceeded. He referred to the differential of the 1Q~ fect anJ stated he did nat believe this was the case in the entire proJect. Mr. Bates inJicatecl there i~ ~nough space on s~xrx~ ~f tfie lots to pravide saunas a~~! Jacuzzis, and that sc~me of the lot~ c~uld even provide a poot and felt there is room for amenitics to bc acfdPd to the p roject. Commissioner Ilerbsl stated he was not goir~g ca vote for any cul-de-sac with 10 houses in an RS-y000 Zune. I{e pointed c~jt tt~at therc are sor~c si,ht-ltne problems and that the Traffic E~gineer is recommtndiny some ctianyes wf~ich wil! probably change the lnt lines. and that hc wcula have to da som~ gradin~~ in order to satisfy thc Traffic Engineer's concerns. Commissioner Herbst stated he felc this tract is tuo dense~ has too many lots~ that he 1~ not ouJecting to the zero lot line cancept~ but it does not belong in the RS-5000 Zo~~e~ and he was making a recommendatio~i thar tti(s be chenged. He stated if the developer wishes to provide an RM-40f?0 devtlopment then scxne of the amenities have to be added. Chairman Tolar aske~ the pctitioner if he was aware of the Traffic Engineer's problems in relationship to the sighting concerns of the private cul-de-sacs to the main street. Jack Reeves, engineer~ stated that a traffic study had been done after the Interdepartmental Committce rneeting and it was found that with very minor grading changes~ they could meet the 35 mile per h~ur sighttng requirement. Ne felt this could be done by pullinc~ some of the existin~ gradiny back and shaving of~~ so~r~e of the banks. He referred to the location of the intersection which appeare' to be a problem at the Interdepartmental Committee meetiny and stat~d that. subsequent to that meeting, they had ~0/10/77 ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEtM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 10, 1977 77-G46 EIR N0. 20y, VARIANCE N0. 2969 ANp TENTATIVE MAP OF TaACT t~c1, 10032 (continued) ~nal will~ tiiC Anaheim Hfils~ Inc. and they had talked with Paul Singer reyardiny lhc location of this partlcular intersectlan~ and he suggested the location as ~hown. Comntssioncr Johnson askcd Mr. Reeves if ho felt he could handle the sfght distancea, breking distanccs, etc. ~nd refQ~red to some arcas with 100-foot draps. Mr. Reeves replied th~t the stopplny dlstanca test had been done and was satisfactory. Chefrman Tolar (ndicated that in the pest tlie Planniny Cam~tsslon has receiv~ed pr4Jects for approval after thc sitc has already been graded and inJlcated he hopcd thls would nAt happen ayaln. Ile stated~ however~ tl~is does not changc hls attttude toward th(s plan~ but he was conce~ned with the parking problem on the cul-de-sac streets and felt mare grading would have to l,e done and that was tl~e cieveloper's ~roblem. He stated he agreed wlth Commissioner Herbst and tl~ougt~t thls was a valid plan and tt~at tt does liave a lot of merlt~ but that It apNGars Lh~re (s Just to~ much on tttic propcrty ~nd ~hc primary problcm ts in the cul•Je-sac ereas; that tf~e parking is a pro5lem but that he was more concerned ab~ut tl~e RM-4000 Zone wl~ere pcople cann~t put in a pool and th~re are no amenities provlded to scrvice th~ rc~plr. in tl~c are~, Hr. stat~~cl tl~at wh~n the Plann(nq Ccxnm(sslon considers RM-~-000 zoniny~ the devr,lopment usually has separate amenitics and some type of beneftt for the people liviny in tf~e devclopment. lie stated tl~e developer could accomplish a combinatiun of thc:se things by ~educing the density. Ne scated the concept fs good~ ic is )usc too dense. Mr. Reeves {~olnted out thc developmEnt pravides park(ny withln thc Code requirements and furtlier stated thal this development iS a cross between a zcro lot line and a livuse with a S-foot side yard. He stated that in tf~e RS-5000 Zone there is an unusable side yard and in this development there ts a usable 1;-foot side yard~ and he felC that was th~ amenity. Canmissloner Jahnson stated fie felt thc Commisslon and Mr. Reeves were in agreement on that point. He aske~ Hr, Reeves what I~appens to the 15-foot slde yarJs when you get to Che cul-de-sac lots. Mr. Reeves repl(ed that there are a couple of lots which do narrow to 10 feet but that these tots flare out in the back. Chairman Tolar stated tha~ 26 out of 33 lots have less pad area than 5000 square feet. Mr. Bates replied chat [his property is master-planned for RM-2400 based on the dPnsity~ traffic~ schools~ population~ etc. but thac the d~veloper felt this type product was not appropriate from a marketing standpoint; that they had exar~ined RS-S~J00 zoning requlreme~ts and felt there was a necd in this area for a hybrid so~newhere between which has common a-nenities. F!e stated he fe1L thts development was somewhere between the zone where rhe buyer has a small 1Ox10-foot patio and the developm.ent where a man has a small~ unusable stde yard, He stated this ~as the plan they had come up with after working with the staff and f1ACMl~C. Ne also stateJ he woutd like to have some direction on what the Commtssiun would like to see done wlth this parcel. Cummissio~er Johnson staLed he appreciated what the developer has gone through; that there are a lot of hurdles for a Jeveloper to overcome. He stated he did not think this Commission has ever even s~niled at 10 lots on a cul-de-sac street. Mr. 8etes stated you could call this 10 lots on a cul-de-sac street or 10 lots around a parking bey court if this were a true townhouse development. He stated the City needs a code to address this problem. 10/10/77 ~ ` MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON, O~tober 10~ 1977 77-647 EIR N0. 20y, VARtANCE N0. 2969 ANO TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 10032 (contlnucd) Cammisslonor Ne~bst ~astaced his concerns about the norrow locs o~ cul-d~-sac streets with i~sufficient perking. Hc statad that tliis Is a townhouse development wikhout the amenittcs; that lt lacks parkinc~ close enough to the everag~ house and that there are no amenities or recreationa~ facilities. Mr. k3atos steted thet if this were a tc~wnhouse development the parkinq requireme~ts liave benn exceeded by two times. Gommissioncr Hsrbst staked Che developer is using tha street clear down the hill to meke up the parkiny standarcls. and riyht now he felt thls plan wes a disaster. Mr. Eiates repl ted that both thc en~~ineer a~~d the arch) tcsct have exAmined the si te and the proposad parking ~ocs rtiieet the l.ode; ttidt t't~~rn i~ suffictent p~rking rrithin~ ~nn f~~t of the units and that those sFaces heing ~lisGUSSed are in excess of that requlrement. Comrnissioner Herbst askeJ Mr. tiates if he wanted the RS-5~~~ tone or RM-~+000 Zone, and Mr. aates replied that he agreed wir.li the aM•A~~OQ townhouse zone. Commissinner flerbst stateJ that if thesc are patio hoi~~es~ khe~ ehey sliould h~ve some of the amenltles; that it does provide private str~ets, but that other amentties must be added I ~i . Mr. Bates referred to patto horne dPVelopments in Irvine. Commissioner Nerbst asked him to loak at the patio I~ome development in the canyon area. Mr. Betes referrcd to a parto home ln the canyon area Nhich has half the requirements for perking and narrow lot frontages, with CommissJoner ilerbst replying that iC has tt~e amenities of the patio hame development. He stated tha people in thc patio I~an~e development necd th~ amen(ti~s of recreattonal facllitleS; that the proposed development does not affer a place for a swimming pool or tennis cou~ts which would keep the load off the parks. Mr. Bates replied he felt trade- offs were the lot width and excess parking. He sLated the lot sizes a~e larger than the townt~ouse development rcquirernents. with Cammissioner Herbst stating they are smaller than the RS-5000 requirements. Ch~irman Tolar stated that he wes nat concerned so much with the amenities; that his baslc problem was that there (s too muct~ deveiopment un [17a cui°de-sacs. tte felt that if the proJect wc ~ redesiyned~ elimina[ing one or two lots~ providing more parking~ and mgybe providin~ some type of community poo) or something stmilar to that~ it wouid be a good proJect. Mr. Qat~s asked that the Plannir~g Commission grant a continuance in order for him to revise the plans. ACTION: Cammissioner Nerbst offered a motion~ seco~ded by Commissioner King and MOTION ~0 (Commissioner Barnes being absent), that consideratlon af the aforementioned item be continued for four weeks, to the reyular meeting af the Anaheim City Planning Ccxm~ission on Nov~mber 7, 1977~ in ord~r for the petitioner to submit rev~sad plans. 10/10/77 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMIS510N~ October 10~ 1977 1 TEM N0. 3 ENVI~ RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 206 Nidden Canyon Reservolr • 3.~ ac.rrs located southeasterly of the fntersection of Serrano Avenue ond ~~idden Canyon Road. 77-648 Thero was n~ one indlcattng thcir presence In appositlon to this mett~r, and although thes staff report to the Planntny Commission dated October 10~ 1977 was not read~ it ls referred to and made e part of the minutes. It was noted that thc Hill and Canyon Municipal Advisory Committee (HACMAC) reviewed Environmental Impact Report No. 1U6 at thelr Saptember 27~ 1977 me~ting and that all members of the Gommtttee present (with one abstent~on) expressed thely desi~e to see the r~servoi~ totatly buried. The Gommittee was yei~~,dlly in agreem~nt that EIR No. 206 was adequate. Lerry S~ars, Civil ~ngineeriny Associatc~ City of Ananeim Water U~partmento was present to answer any quest(ons. TNE PU~LIC FIEAaING WAS CLOSED. Comm(ssioner Herbst asked what thc City planned to do with the site~ and Mr. Sears replleJ tf~at the Utility Uepartmcnt is still working with thc Parks and Recreation Dcpartment +~nd that Che reservoir site wil) protably be developeci with parkiny over it. Canmissioner Herbst asked wfi.~t the parking would be used for and statecl he was conce~ned abouc the houses above the site. Mr. ~ears stated that the la~d was zoned for a neiyht~orf~ood shopping center~ and Annika Santalahti, Assistant Direc;or for Zoning~ confirmed thls. Com~issianer Herbst state~ he felt there would be an impact on the houses that back up to the site and was conc~rned about. terinis co~rts or the other uses proposed. Mr. Sears stated that whichewer alternative is chqsen, the roof will probably expuse 2 or 3 feet~ that that was the most economi:al way tn Jev~lap the site. ACTION: Commissioner Kiny offered a motion~ secon~e~J ~y Cor~w~~issioner D~vid and MQTl4N ~D (Commissioner Barnes befng absent)~ that Uraft Environmental Impact Report''1W. 206 for the proposed Nidden Canyon Rescrvoir and Pumping Station having been considere~ this date by the Anaheim City Planning Cortmission and evidence, both written and oral~ having been presented to supplement said Draft EIR I~o. 206~ finds that satd EIR does coreform to thp City and State EIR Guidclines and the California Environmencal Qual(ty Act and does hereby certtfy EIR No. 246 as being (n com~liance with the Calif~rnia Enviro~mental Quality Act. lTEN N0. 4 EIR! NEGATlVE DEGLARATION CONTINUEU PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MYRON AND N0. -7 ~ KAYLE SIMON AND STA~iLE; L. ROSEN~ 1603 Cha~ticleer ~N~ 0. 29 ~- Road~ Anaheim, CA 92802. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately Q.5 acre having a frontar~e of approx(mately 133 fie~et on the south side of La Palma Avenue~ havtng a maximum deRth of approximately 160 feet. betng located approximately 1320 feet ea~zt of the centerline of Eucitd Street~ end further described as 1334 West La Palma Avenue. PropertY presently Classified RS-7200 (RE5IDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE. 10/10/77 ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANANEtM CITY PI.IINNtNG COMMISSION~ Octobor 10~ 19J7 77-649 EIR NEGATIV~ DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. y7-7a•3 AND VAi~IANCE N0. 2~~7 (conti~ueci) - - .._.._...._ .---------- REQUESTED Cl.l1SSIFICATION: RM-1200 (RESIOENTIAL~ MULTiPLE•FIIMILY) ZONC. REQUEST~D VARIAI~CE: WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM BUILDI~tG SITE AREA PER DWELLING U~IIT~ (B) MAXIMUM EiUILD1t~G HEIGNT. (G) MINlNUM FLOAR AREA~ (0) MINIMUM SIDE YARO~ (E) MINIMUM OISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDIN~S~ (F) MINIMUM PEDESTRIAId ACCESSWAY WIDTH~ AND (G) REQUIRED BLOCK WALL~ TO CUNSTRUCT A1~ 18-UNIT APARTMENT CGMPLEX. SubJect petltion was continucd from thc n~eetinys of July la and August 1~ 1917, at th~ request of tlie petitioner, and frorn ttie m~~ting of August 29~ 197J~ for revised plans. There was no one Indicating ttielr presencc in oppositl~n to this request, and alth~ugh the sleff irNort to the Planr~inl f,~mmicsl~n dated October 10, 1977 was not read at the public hearing~ it is referred to an~i madc a parc of thc minutes. It was noted that the peti;ioner libd reyuested that tl~is it~m be witlidrawn at tliis tlme ancl resubmittect at ~+ latcr dat~ tn order to delete all waivers an~~ havc. the adjacent neighbors review the revised plans. ACTIOt~: Cornmissione:r King aftered a motiun, seconded by Cortmissioner Herbst and MOTION ~D (Comtnissiancr aarnes and Linn bsiny absent), tl~at the Planning Commission does hcreby terminate subject petition at tl~e request of the petitlancr. (THIS AFOREMEtIT10NED ITCM WAS CON5IDERED AT THE BEGIN~~IIdG OF TNE PIANNING COMMISSIOW MEETIt~G.) ITcI'1 NU. CI N IVE DECLARATION PUaLIC HEARIi~G. OuNCRS; JOSEPH AN~ ATLA MIGLIORE, RECLASSI ICA IOId ~IO. 77"7~'19 1167~ l.~'•ota Lane~ Garden Grove, CA 92640. AGEttT: NECTOR T~`RANGO~ 1617 Carriage Drive~ Santa A~a. CA 92704. SubJect p~operty~ consisting of a rectangularly-s~aped parcel af land consistiny of approxin~ately 7~75 square feet having a frontage of approximately Jy feet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue, havfng a maximum depth of approximately iby feet, beiny located apprdximately 610 feet west of the ce~tcr- line of Narbor Boulevar~i~ and furth~r dcscribed as 7Q6 Wr.st Orangewood Avenue, is proposad for reclassification from the CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE to the RM-1200 (RESIDENTIAL~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZQNE. 7here was no one indicating their presence in op~ositi~n to sub)act petition~ and although the staff repo~t to the Planni~y Comnissio~ dated Ottober lU~ 1377 was not read at the public h~aring~ iC is referrcd to and made a part of the minutes. liector Tarany~~ agent for the owner~ indfcated thls request is to change the classification from commerctal~ limiteJ to residential, multiple-family zone and is ln keeping wlth the A.~ahelm Gene~al Plan. lie stated that the proposed plan confarms wlth all requtrements of the reclasslfica~ on and that the petitioner agrees to atl ce~dttions of the staff reporc but asked the Comm(ssion to consider two axceptions. He referred to the Plannin5 Commtssion policy requirtng a 25-foot wide. landscaped buffer strip adJacent to the parking area abutting a single-famfly zone; and steted that it would make it impassible to develop the proJect in the manr~er propased if the landscaping and parking requirements have to be met. 10/10/77 MIWUTES~ ANAlIE1M CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOt~~ October 10~ 1977 77'650 EIR NkGATIVE DE~ ARATION AND RECL!-SSIFICATION N0. 77-78-19_ (continued) Mr. Taranyo also referred t~ Cond(tion No. 3 of thc Interdepertmental Comniltc~ recomme~idatlons concerntny the fire hydr~nts End steted thnt there are fire hydrants already exlsting withln 6A feet of the site. 7NE PUIfLIC HEA~ING WAS CLQSED. Cf~alrman Tolar rr.f~rr~~d to the fire ~iydrant reyutrement mCntioned by Mr. Tarango~ and Jay Tftus~ Ohf~~ents~~areeexlstlny~~~hrequircdhathe~Fi~e Uepartmentbwould have top~mekecth~tnd if fi re y detormination. Commfssioner Ki~g referred to the Traffic Engineer's can~ern regnrdln~ the 2 parktng ~paces locatn~~ fArthest to the south to be unusable ui~less widened to 12 feet. Mr. Taranyo statecJ th~l they havc ronm 5etween che parkinq st~lls and the proposed bullding of about 10 fect and that this last parkin~~ stnll could he in,.reased by 3-1/2 feet, which would lcavc G-1/'l fcet to thc bulldiny ancJ still ail4w 3 feet for sidawalk• N e s t a t ed th.~t two sta~rways are propnsed fo+ the canvenience of the accuponts of the bulldiny but [hat this is not rrquired anJ one ~~[airway caulcl be e l im inate d. Chairnwn Tolar stat~J that tl~c City of Anaheim is presently undcryolnc~ a study of deslynaCing ~, certain ~~ortlon of tt~e pa~4:iny requirements f~r compact cars~ and Mr. Tarango replleJ that they c~uld desi~anate this ~arkin9 spac~ for a compaet ca~. ACTlON: C~mrnissioner Y.iny offered a motion. secor~ded by Comnissioner Uavid and MOTION C IED (Camn~lssioner adrnes a~id Llnn beiny absent), that the Anaheim City Plann(ny Commission has reviewed the suh,ject proposal to reclass~fy the zoniny from CL (~~~nmercial~ Lirnited) Zone to the RM-1200 lResidential, Multiple-Frmily) Zone on approximately 7~75 squa re f~:est ~ hav i ng a`ron tage oF approx ~ rna te l y 15 f ec t o~~ tl~e south s i de of O rangewood Avenue~ havir.y a meKim,.,r df~pth of appraximate.ly 105 fect~ being loca[ed approxlmately 610 feet west of the cer,ter; .i ~: ot Harb~r 8oulevard; and cioes hereby apprave the Negative Declaratlon from thc requiremerit to prepare an environmental impact report ~~n the basis that there would be no significant individual or cucnulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of thia Neyative Declaration since the Anahelm General Plen designates the sub}ect prapcrty for yeneral commPrcial and mediuc~-density land uses commensurate with the prooosal; that no s~nsit{ve enviro~mental impacts are inv~~lved i~ the proposal; tha' the ini~lal Stu~iy submitted by the peciti~n~r indicates no ~ignificant individual or cumulatlve adve~se environmental impacts; and that the Negat+ve DeclaraCior substantiating the fareyoln~ findings is on flle in r.i~e Cicy of Anaheim Planning DepartmenL. ACTION: Commi~sioner K3ng offered Resolution t~e. PC77-213 and maved for Its paasaye and ~~an. xhat the Anaheim City Planning Commission dnes hercby grant Petitlon for Reclassificatlon No. 77- 78-19, subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On rull cal1~ the foreyoiny resolution was passed by the followin~ vote: AYES: C~'~MISSIOfJERS: KING~ UA.VID~ NERUST~ JOHNSQN, TOLAR NOES: LON~MIS~IOtiERS: NONE ABSENT; COMMISSIONI"RS: EiARNES~ LINN COPtMI S5 I ONER L 1 Ni~ ENTE RE ~ TIIE MEET I NG AT 3:00 P. M. 10/10/7? MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNIHG CpMMtSSION~ Octobe~r 10~ 1~77 77~~51 ITEM N0. 6 ~I~VE DECLARATION PUBLIC ~ICARING. OWNERS: CALIFORNIA TOWEL b IINEN 0~ N0. - ti-20 SUPPLY CO.~ GEQRGE ANU L. KE~INETI! HEULER~ ET AL~ ~"~ . ~u 906 Planaer Dr(vc, Anahelm~ Cl1 92805. AGENT: ~ RACT N0. 10102 DAVIO N. FREAa, A60 North Maln Street~ Orange~ CA 92G67. SubJect pro~erty is a rectengulerly-ahsped parccl of land consisting of approxlm~tely 5.14 acres haviny a frontaye of Appr~ximately 42~1 Feet on the north sldr of Lo Palma Avenue~ having e maxlmum depth of approximatrly 527 feet, and beiny located approxima:ely 41g feet east of t~~e centarline of Euclid Street. ~'roperty prescntly classlfled R5-A-43~000 (RESIUENTIAL/AGaiCULTUftAL) tONE. Rk:QUESTEU CLASSIFI(,ATION; RM-400U (RESIUEI~ITIAL~ MULTIPLC-FAMILY) ZUNE. REQl1f.STED VARI~I~CE: WAIVE.R OF MINIPIUM kiU1LUING SITE: ARCA. TENTAIiVC TIIACT REQUES~: 1-~ ~T~ 53-UIlIT CONUOMINIUM SUt~DIV15:f1~1, There were~ three people presc:r; interested in the proJect, not opposed but concerned about the traff(c~ and altliouyh the s!aff report to thc: Plannin~ Cor~~mission dated Octobcr 10~ 1977 was not rec+d at the public heariny, it is referred to an~- maJe a part of the minutes. Uavid Fre~r~ agent for the awner~ stated he fclt this was an attrar.tive proJect and meGts the houstny neeJs of tfie area~ and that as a cUn:l~minitm proJect between st~gle-famtly houses end commercial (s an excellent buffer usaye. Ile felt the proposed pro,ject would be a fine aJditi~n to tt~c r,eiyhborf~ood and the ~ity o` Anahcim~ a~d poi~ted out some of thc features of the p°oject, i.e., that all units will have fireE~laces; that assr.ntfAlly there would be a 35'foot setback fror~La Pelma Avenue, 25 feet from the parkway~ and stated that adJacent Co [he sinyle-family hause~ on t!:e east there would be a 20-foot landscaped area; that the developer had met with Lhe ~omeowners in the area and had distribut~d plans to dlfferent indlviduals in the area and the re~~pcion had bcen favorablt. Regardiny the variance~ he stated th.~t it was his feeling tfiE variancc should be defined as a mathemat(c.al necessity and referred to the definition ,f a street and a drive,w+ay, and stated they are ~raposin~, private streets which provide exzellent tfafftc flow for th~ project. He felt this would be of benefit to the people buyin~ the units and wanted to preserve that flow; that the traffic flow wouid be for the cc~nvenience of the residents as well as for police and fire protection. He stated h~• referred to thls as a mathematical necessi[y because if a large portion nf tti~ streets were redefined as Jriva~rays, then they would not be counte~ in the reduction of yross acreage fi;~sre to arrive at the net ~creage figure~ and if recalculate~ including the driveways~ :he development would be very close to meeting the requiren-ents. Gerald Bushore~ 1G17 West La Palma Avenue~ stated that his p~ope~tv abuts the pruperty in question an~ that he is still nat getting notit~ication of thes,~ hearings. He steted that t~ie last time he h:~d becn told it was bec~use of a change ir~ s~:creta~fes and that he had gotten no response to phan~ calls tc the Planniny Departmert. Ne refc~recl to the tngress and egress onto La Palm~ Avenue ~n~ stated he f.~~t there should be a signal there. and that was his only obJectio~ to the pr.Jecc~ otl~arN.se t~e thouqht (t was a qood pro,ject. Mr. Frear state~! ;here !s a t~affic proble~n on La Palma, and tlie petttlon~r is aware of it. He stated he ayrees with the Traffic Engineer and essume~ there w~ll be a right-tur~ po~ke: from La Palma Avenue onto Dresden; that one of the maJor prodlems is the left-turn s i tua! i~n on to Dresders; tt~a t they ~a~~e d 1 s:ussed thz poss i b i 1 1 ty of a s t gna 1 w i th th~ 10/10/77 `.. MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Qctober 10~ 1~77 71-by2 EIR NEGATIVE UECl11RATI0N~ RECLASSIFICATION N4. J7-78-20~ VAkIANCE N0. 2968 AND 'fENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 10102 (cnntinued) ~ _ Treffic Enyineor and was told tfiat sl,ynals are i~stoiled on a prlarity basis. Ile stated that tlie dansity has been cut substantially fr~ ~hat h~c1 been proposed beforc~ and tl~at tha na~ture of the proJect has been chan~aed an~ .>,atoa thAt everythln , that could be done to the interlor to (mpravP tho traffic sltuation has been ~I~,nc~. Rosanne Ament. 1W1~- Glen Urive~ strted she live d adJncent to th~e prvJ~ct and th~t the Commfssion had previously approvc;d a 12~~-un(t apartn~ent but that the Ctty Councl) had denl~a it. She felt tf~is was an excellent plan, but was concernect about the traffic and suggested a s~affic study be done:. She referre d to a crosswalk at Arbur and La Palma and thc: chi ldren wh~ crossec.~ the strect~ r~nci fel t Dresden and La Palma would bc a l lkely spot for a traffic siynal. Nelen Graca~ 11!~2 Nortli Crown 5treet~ stat~d concern~d ah~ut the trafflr„ ShF Sugc~~atPd of I.a Palma to providc r(ght•turn pocke:s. she yoes alnng wl th these plens t~ut was th at ihn screPt he widened on the north slde 7HE PUBLIC HCARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Frear stat~d that he had haci ellscussions wiCh the TrafFic F.ngineer regarding the trafflc signal at thls location. Jii~~ Kawamura~ Assistant Traffic Enyinesr~ stmt~ d he was nat f~miliar with any discussl~ns Paul Sinyer has had~ but that he was aware tha t left-turn pockets were discussed for Dresde~ and La Palma~ and i~, was the f~eling a t chat time there would be adequate left- turn storage For the traffic onto Oresden. f1e st.~ted that 5i units would generate approximately 53Q vehicle trlps per Jay. which wauld be dispersed onta Dresd~n and along Glen ~rlve and Arbnr Strcet. Chalrman Tolar asked huw far ~part the City na ~mally places traffic signals and tndicated he tho+~ght there was about 47J feet from the cer,terline of Euclid 5treet !o Dresden~ and asked if that was normally a lot r.losrr th~an the City wouid desire. Jim Kawamufa stated that it was; that usually traffic si3nals are placed at least ~nr quarter of a mile apart but that development is causing the need f~r signals between these spots. Chairman Tolar ask~ed the cc~st for instatlatio n of a signal at this point, and Mr. Kawamura replled that the cast would be approximately $ 40~0~0. Commissioner Herbst stated that the Clty Caun cel has recently passed a new policy reg~rding traffic siynals~ and Rnnika Santala h tl, Assistant Director for Zoning~ explained that each developer pays an asses~ment per unit on a city-wide basis and that trafflc signal locatians are put on a priority basi~ city-wide. Chairman Tolar stated that the same people who are oppose. to these untts because of the traffic concerns would have the upport~inity to vofce their concerns to the City Counctl reqarding the traffi~ signal. An untdentified lady In tlie au~tence referred to a number of accidents at Harbor and La Palma and stated s~~e would not iike to see th e Cormission put a dollar Piyure on saneone's life. 10/10/77 ~ MINUTES , ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. October 10~ 19J7 77-~a53 EIR NEG/lTIVE ~ECLAMTIQN~ RECU155t~lCRT10~1 l~Q. ;7-79-20~ vart~n,~CC t~c`. 23G~ AtiD 'itI~TATiVE MAP OF TMCT N0. 10102 (wntlnued) , Chalrman Tolar repl ied that he was noc tryiny to place a dol lar figure on sort-eone's l i fe~ but that he had referred to the cost of the trafflc sig~i~l and wanted to be sure it was undsrs tood that cc~ch one of tt~es~ un i ts wt 1 1 be ass~ssed so much for e s 1 yna 1. and tha t t t (s un to tlie Councll to declde where Che slgn~ls arc goiny to be placed and lf thls pr~jact is approvecl~ then tliose p~uple who are opposed can go to the C(ty C~unctl and apply a certaln or~ount of press~~re towards qet~~ny A signal t~t this location. Commtssi onur Llnn stated that Oresden serves as an outlrt for peo~le who live tn the apartmersts and th~ homes soutli of La Palma Avenue and it (s their choice t~ cul through the shopping centcr~ an~ that a tr~ffic styn~~l waut~ s4rve those people. He st~ted that wh~n t a ~A1~~.~ ~~r~ i~„sy ~ ~ t ~ s v~ y di ff i cul t to ~o Y1C~t on Lo Palma frcn Dresdc~ and a trafftc ~Ignal would probably hcl~~ ~~ lut of peopl;:, Comntssioner Kin~~ rcferr~:f to tiie Enyinerrfny Divis(on reconmendatlon that priv.~te streets m~st be deve loped per C1 ty st~~n~iarcis ~s to ~.~i dth ancl yeom~;tr f cs ~ an~l Mr. F'rear rep) ied that al l standards would be met. Cor,xn)ss i oner Flerbst stated that he I tked the lao!c~ of the ~roject but is concerned about the necesslty to ffnd a harcl~ ~p; that on a rectan~uiarly-shaped piecc of property of this size it is pre[ty hard C~ Justlfy s~naller units, incl stateci he woul~l ' ike to hear from xhe develoo~r as to why he did not propose develupment at ~~000 squar~ feel per unit rather than 3586 squzrc feet. Mr. Fre~; indicated that there werc two approaches: 1) the way the City af Anahelm calculates the coverayc per acre an~ rhe net flyu~•e is determined by subtrac.ting streets; 2) if the proJect were redefined and scnrw of the st~~ets are ca) led driveways~ then there would be no problem and there would be suffic~ent land, lie felt tt,is proJect was worth staying with because of the exce~lent trafflc flow wittiin the p~oJect. Ile stated if they reduced thP number ~f streets and cal ~a~l thcm drtveways~ then they would be very close tfl the 4000-syuare fovt fiyure~ and ~hat it was their choice to maintaln the traffic flow rath~r than call these private strcets driveways end felt that it is a benefit to the praJect. Commiss ioner Herbst aslced how staff had calculated this, and Annika Santalahti replted that overa) l calculakions were based ~n actu.til lenyth of private streets by 20 feet wide~ regardl~ss of the actual street wiclth~ and Qn prlvate streets the 20 Yeet would be subtractod from the gross area~ and the only exception woul~ be cul-de-sac terminti, She state~i thls development had been calculated by 20 feet wide~ and the cleveloper had yotten thc ben~flt of the 2i3-foot street. Mr. Frear stated that he had calculated L1ie pr~~ect and found that i f Cfie 28-foot private st~eets were calle~ private ariveways and the strcets ar~d the driveways were then subCraeted~ th~: p; oJect vVQU~C) hP, very close to the but id(ny coverag~e requi rement but that he would like to see the streets remain as he felt they added t~ the q~.aality of the project_ He potnted out that if he drew little patches of green (nto tf ~ plar~ the streets would become driveways ar~d it was possible to still come close tc tf~e circulat~ w(th the pr~vate drlveways. He added he felt the private streets arovide a very ,~nconqested proJect and the fact that there is an alternace way to calc~late the stree~s ~ s s ign i f lcant. CnrtKnissioner Herbst stated the deveiope~ coulo look at ihis two ways~ one b'ng that he has too many units on the pro,ject. 10/10/77 MINUTES~ AN NIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ October 10~ 1y17 77-6;4 CIR t1C~ATIYC ~CCI:.i'..1TIOt~~ RCCi.A55i~ ICAT10~~ ti~. i7•~7~ «~ V~~',IA~iCC ~i0. 2~L~ :~~C Ttt~T:Ttt'C MAP~CT N0. 10102 Sc~ntinued) Mr. Frear stated he felt morc had becn donc than would normally be cxpected f~ a eo~idaminlum pr~)~~t a~~d he shauld not be penrl(zcd for ha41n~ quality but{t into the project. Chairman Tolar inJicflted hc ayrr.c~ w(th Mr, Frear, ACTIUN: Commissioner M,ing ~tfcred ~~ nx~ti~n~ scconJed b•y Commi~sioner David end Mt1TI0N C~R~ED (Gommission~r E3arnes beiny absent)~ Lhat the lln~hcim Clty Planning Comnisslon h~s r~vicwed the subject prop~sal t4 rec~assify the zanlny from the RS-A-k3,~00 (aesidcnttal/Agriculiural) Zone to tl~c RM-4000 (aesidcn,ial~ Multi~~le-Family) Zone to est~ ~lish a one-Ict~ ;3-unit~ P,M-~!~~~? ~::~~~+„m;,•i'Jm suh~fiviSlr:~n ,~rit-~ wr~iv~r of m(n~mi~m buil~iny sltr. arca pcr cfwelliny unit~ on app roximately 5.14 acres~ having a frontaye of approxlmately 42d `eet on tlic north s(clc ~f I.a f'alma Avenue~ havir a maximum depth of approxlmately y2/ reet~ ancl belnq located approximately 41) fcet c,t of the centeritne of Eucltd Street; and cloes hereby appr~~ve the Neya[iva Oeclaration from tlie requlrement to prepare an environmenta) irnpact report on che basis tiiat there would be no slgnfficant Individua) or cumulative aJvcr~;c environnx~nta) impact due to thc approval af this Ne~ative. Oeclaratian s(nce the llnaheim General Plan desiynates the subject property for gr~ne~al commercla) and medium-density land uses cormx nsurate with the proposal; that no sens(tive envirunmental (mpacts are (nvolved in ttie proposal; that thc inittal Stuay submltted by the petltloner indicatE:s n~ significant indivtdual or cu~nulative adverse environm~enta) impacts; and that the Neyative Ueclarat(on substanttating the foreyoing findings is on ftle in th f,ity af Anahcim Planr;iny Departm~nt. ACTION; Commissioner Kiny ofFcred kesolution No. PC77-214 and moved for its passage and a~optTon~ that the Anaheim Clty Planntng Commissic~n dnes hereby grant Petition for Reclass' "icatlon No. 77-7a-20~ subject to I~terdepartmental Committec• reca~~rr.endattons. On roll call~ the ;`orego(n~~ ~esolution was passed by thc following vote: AY~S : COMM I 55 I OtJE RS : K 1 NG ~ DAV I U~ JOtiNSO!1 ~ F1ERE35'I' ~ L I NN ~ TOLAR NOES: COMMI5510tdER5: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E3ARNE5 ACTION: Commissloncr Kiny offered Resolutlon No. PG77-215 and mc~ved for its passag~ and a- oc~~ptTon~ that the Anaheim City Planr~ing Commission does he~eby gran[ Petitlon for Varlance No. 296b~ on [he basis that the petitioner derr~nstrated a hardshtp exists ti~ tf~at sole access to i~e property is fror~ La Palma Avenue and~ theref~,re, necess~tates an extenslve vehi4ular circulatlon system tc provide adequace on-site circulation~ sat~ system unduly reduciny the usable ne[ building sita area per dwellinr, unit; that the subJect properCy providcs :, buffer between e xisting apartments to the north ~nd west and existing single-family residences to the east; that the proposed development wili pravide low and moderate cost housing and a pleasart livtng environment and wili alla thc same substantial property rlghts possessed by properties immediately to thc north of subject prs+~erty; and that the aforernentionPd nn-site private street system provldes en excellent cii ilstlon element for the safety and convenience of the property owners in thts projec~; and sub~ect to Interdepartmental Committec reconme~dations. Commtssioner Johnson asked about the p~eviously approved plans, and Mr. Frear pointed out that there had been a twa-s tory apart.~~ent bu i 1 d i ng wl th 124 un i ts and tiie or ig ( nal request was far RM-1200 z~ning. 10/ 10/77 ;, MINUTES~ ANAHfIM CITY PLAPINING COMMISSION~ October 10~ 1977 11-b55 FIR N-~~4TIVE pECLARATION. RECIA'SSIFICATION N0. 77-78~20~ VARIANCE N0. 2968 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRAC~ W0. 10102 ~nttnucd) ~ Cc~nmtss(oner Herbst I~dlcatca he ciid n~t feel there wes a r~ason for a varlanG~ on thls p~operty; that the var(ance could have been eltminated by proJect redes~gn~ •.aith ~' . Frear stating his fecling that peopic buyln,y tlic ur~its do not have a v~ice In the mAtter and he felt the awr~crs nf the unlts would wa~7t to sec thesc kinds of strPCts for safety and convenience. Mr. Frear A~SO indicated tt~at he fclt this was an excellent proJect but that tf unlts were cut~ the d~vclopment cauld Gonfc.rm precisely to the Code. Commissioner Johnson indlcated his concern tF;ot th~, could be a preced~nt-setting situatlon Anci a~'.ed if the trade-off here was beautificat(on of thc pro,ject. Mr. Frear rpplled he felt the trade-off is more than bn_auty~ it was for safety and fo~ the Palice and Fire Departrr+~nts for emergency access~ and alsu sulvc~l tf~e prablen of traffir conyestlon vrtthin thc pro,jcct. Gonmissioner 1lerbst state~l I~e felt tl~c~ project could be redesiqned wtth~ n~ varlances and still 9et the same trafflc fla~r and ind(cated he woulcf not vote for a proJsct the petttloner would brln~~ back In wh~ch dld nc~t provide the circulati~~n. M~. Frear state~i I•~~ fcit a rig~t was being denied to the future owners of these units and Felt It was pertinen[ to app~ove this far good cir~ulation. Conmissionar King (ndicated he felt thc small area be~ng requeste~i for waivet' was insignificant. Chairman Tolar stated he was goin~~ to suppor[ the r;~otion~ statin~i he was conc~rned that the Commissi~n docs not have latitucSe to allow a 322-foot differential in a~.+nft end felt Lhis is a good proJecL and it would be a g~od thiny for the community and would provide neceSSary hous~ng. He state~i he thouc~ht we are governpd by too many regulations~ ~nd as far as he was concerned t.hc Commisslor~ does have the latituJe t~ allow this same dtfferential anJ the propcrty to tf~e north has a s~imilar benefit. Ne referred ta thc prevlously-approved proJect for 12~~ units an~.i stated he wos yoing to support this proJect wtth 53 unlt~. Commission~r ~ierb,t referred to the Code rcq~(riny 4000 square feet and indicated that lf the Code was changed to a~low 350o square fcet. develcpers would be ~sking for 3000 s~uare feet. Chalrman ~Tolar stated he felt there has to be latitude in any plan and that this plan provides excellent circuiation for the safety and convenience of the people in the proJect and around the project. Commissioner I;in; stated that if no v~~riances were applied for there would be no nee~ for ~ Planning Commission. and asked staff about Mr. Bushore's comment that he had not been notlfied about this hearing. Annika Santalahti r~plied that the property awners wlthin 300 feet had been notified~ and the mo~tuary was notifled to an address (n Texas. Commissloner David stated he is concerned when he hears a develo~e~ saying he can develop without variances~ anJ referred to the Statc law mandating that 'he Planning Commisston find specia) circumst~nces on the praperty befo~e granting the varia~ce and stated he felt he would vote against the resolution. 10/10; 77 C~ MINU7E~, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMhSISSION~ OcCo~er 10~ 1g77 77-656 C 1 R NC r.4T I'JC D~CLAttAT! ~!• ~ P~CCLASS f F! CAT i QN Mn , ja-7A-~n ~ vAa I ANCE N~ . 2968 ANO TENTAT I VE M_AP. OF TRACT NO . 101 G7. (~co~ n t 1 nu~d~ ~_ ~~, ~_,,,, Comm)ssioner Llnn asked if there wer~ any special circumstances stnce he ~~~ld flnd nothlny unusual obout the p~aperty. Jack ldhite. Assistant CI.~~ Attorney~ stat~d the question of special circumstances Is b factual issua rather than e~eyol onr. and stated that speclal ctrcumstances can entall more then physica) cfiaracteristics of the property. 11e stated the~e has to be specla) circumstences Including, out not Iimlte~J to~ the siz~. shape and t~pography of the praperty And if the~e are other special clrcumstanccs the Commisslon could reasonably find~ such as the possibility that tl~e increased w'dth of the streets that are being ~~vided over and above Chet requtred in the Code :reates a varlance and that lncreased Wt~rh Ic provldiny additional safety and circulation to the proJect, it (s passible that th(s could be consldered a specia) circumscance. t>ut th~t was up ta tl~e Gommissi~n t~ determine~ and that he wouid ~i~.fend anJ suppor~ t~P dNCls~on. Nc stated the Commisslon could look at othe~ than physical characterist~ ~ of the pronerCy; ~hat If the var(ance is boing creatod by a situatiun whe~~a the developer is providiny amenltles and those ame~itles arc being provided in the best interest~ welfarc and safety of the gencral public, then thc Commissi~n may mok~ that findiny. Ne also staCed that there was no such thing as settiny a precedent whe~ you are talking about zc,ning; tl~at each ptece ~f property IS unique anJ no cteveloper cou~ 1 use ^tie Pl~~nnin•• Corrmission'r, decision here AS a springboard for another develvpment. On roll call~ the foregoing resolution wes passed by the folluwing vote: AYES: COMMISSI~NERS: KING~ JOHN~ON, LINN~ TOLAR NOES: COMMIS5101~ER5: NERBST, DAVID ABSCIJT: COMMISSIONERS: DARNES ACTIOFI: Commissloner King offered a motio~~ scc4nded by Cortmisslor~er Johnson and MOTION CARRIEU tCommisstaner Barnes being absent and Commissi~ners Herbst and David voting no), that tf~~ A~aheim Ctty Planning Commission does hereby find [hat the praposed subdivfslo~~ together with its deslyn and impravement, is conststent with Che City of Anaheim's General Pian pursuant to Governr~xnt Code Section 66b73,5; and does~ therefore~ approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 10102 for one RM-4G00 (Residential, Muitiple•Famtly) zoned lot. subJect to the following conditi~~ns: 1. That the approval of Tentative Hap of Tra~t No. iQ102 is granted subJect to the approval of Rsclassiftcation tio. 77-7a-20 and V'ariance No. 29G8. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as n~ore than one subc~ivislon, each subd(viston thereof shall be submitted in tentative form fur appr~val. 3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 4. That a final tract map of subject property shall be suEr~ttted to and approved by the Clty Counc.il end then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 5. That the covenants, co~ditians, and ~estrictions shall be submitted to and approwed by the City Attorney's Offlce and the City Engineer prior to City Council approva) of the final tract map and~ further~ that the approved covenants, conditions~ and rest~lctfons shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. 6. That street names shali be app~oved hy the City Planning Department prior to approval af a final tract rnap. 7. That drainaye of subJect p~operty shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactorM to the Gity Enyineer. 8. 7hat the awncr(s) of subJect property shall pay to the City of Rnahelm the appropriate park a~d recreatt~n En-iieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the C.y Council~ said feas to bc paid at the tim~; the building permit ls issued. 10/10/77 MI~~UTES~ A11AH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ October 1Q~ 197~ 77-657 EIR NFrATIVF p~~lARl~T10N, RCCL~SSIFICATION N0. 77~78-20~ Vl1RIANCC N0. 2968 AND TENTIITIVE MAP OF 'tRACT N0. 10102 (cont(nu~~a) ..~.. ~_......__•.__ 9. That all privat~ st~•er.ts sh~~ll bp developed in accordance with the City of Anahcim's sta~dards for private scrects. 10. If permenent strect name slyns havc not bcen installc:cf, temporary strcct name slgns shel) bc Installed pr(or to any accupancy. 11. That a n-od(f1eJ cul-dc-sac st~ell bc canstructed at thc tcrminus of Glcn Drive. ;2. That a fiftcen (15) foot public util'ty easement ~h~ll be dcdfcated to the Clty of Anaheirn to cunnect to Glen Lrive, a~ requireJ by the Director of Publtc Uttlit(es. RLCk:5S A ten-minutc recess was called at 3:40 p.m. RECQNVEtIE The rnectiny was re~onvened at 3:5; p. n, wl th al I Cort~issioners Pxcept l:omm{ ss ianer uarnes be i ny pre;sun l. ( TE:M N0. 7 E RTC~~RICAL EXEMPTION-CL/1SS ~ PU~LIC NE~RIf~G. OWNER: WRP.TNER INNS~ INC.~ 1,~55 South flert~or Uoulevard~ Anaheim~ CA 9260?.. AGENT: ANDREW SCHWEaf:l~ 115~ Nest Ccrr(tos~ Anahelrn~ CA 92802. Petltloner requESts WAIVER Of' M I tJ I MUM S i RUCTUR/1L SET4ACK TO CONSTkUCT TWO Pl1RK1 ~~G T I CY.ET a00Tf~5 on prope~ty descr(bed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land cunsisting of approximately 10.9 acres located at the nortf~west corner of Gonvention 'aay and I~arbor poulevard, havin9 approximate front~yc, of 600 fcec on the north side of Convention uay and 7A5 feet on the west stcie of Narbor poulevard~ and furttier descrlbed ~as 18~5 South liarbor Boulevard. Property presently classified C-R (COhWERf.IAL-RCCRE:ATION} ZONC. There was no one indicating their presence in oppositlon to subject petition, and although •he staff report to thc Planning Commissi~n dateJ October 10~ 1977 was not read at the pu,lic heariny, It is referred to ana made a par[ af the minutes. And'ew Schwebel~ agent for the petitiuner~ scatcd he was seeking waiver of mtnimuni str~ctural setback to construct two parking ticket boott~s. fle stated this request is bein~ made in order to salvaye son~e of the pa~king naw being used by the people attenJtng the ,lnaheim Convention Center for various events~ wh(ch leaves no roon~ for the hotel ~uest park-ng. TNE PUSLI~ `~EARING wA5 GLOSED. Commissiorer Herbst stated the probl~m with this ~articular re~;uest is th~ possibility of traffic be{ng backed up onto Harhor 9oulevard an:~ ~sked if •~~ere was any way to resolve thls. Ne suggested a left 7r right~turn pocket. Mr. Schwebel stated that .just past the Jolly Roger Restaurant a small cutback does occur at the present time. He presented pictures showing the traffic flow at the parttcular locatlon of the 5treet on whlcn the subJe~t variance is being requested. Chairman Tolar stated he was concerned with storage which rr~y be caused with the one entry next to Con~~ent(on Way. He asked if there was some way to r~~ove tlie ticket booth back away from the entry; that he was sympathet~.; with conc~rns of the petitioner and understood tl~e problem. He also suggested that that access point be designated an exit only. l0!10/71 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOP~~ Octobcr 10~ 1977 77-658 ElR CATEGORICP.L EXEMPTION AND VARI~NC~ N~. 2962 (continued) Mr. Schwebel stated tliP first ent~yway Is an exit anly anri ttie second entryway Just past the hote) is the maln cntryway. Ile stated that r~ll truck deliverlcs are planned to come in on Canvontion Wey; and that all employees enter throu~~h tf~e back alleyway. which will ellminate qulte u bit nf thc: traffic fran the front entry. Commissioner Kiny was concerne~i with traffic backing ~p into a public street. fle referred to the Los Angelc5 Convention Cen[er and stet~d that if you come from the north~ wlth the ticket booth back 100 feet~ there have becn enormc~us tr~ffic back-ups because there Is not enough depth for storege and the traffic backs up on a~uhlic street~ ancl thts is what we arc trying to ~~vold at this location. Mr. Schwebel stated thr. picture shows th~~re could be a substanti~l storaqe area and stll) hovc thc l~~+ne cl~ePer r~ rhF h~t~l nassablc, Commi~sloner Kii~y stAted thcre are threc lanes goiny ..~~~t~ un Harbo~ O~ulc~vard and asked if IiC pianned to use one of thosc lanes for t~ie stor~ye, anJ Commissioner Ilcrbst noted thcre is no parkin~ ailc~.reJ un Harbor Ba~~levard at this locakion. Commissloner L.inn su~gested the en[r~nce on tlie south side hc an nnqled e~ntry only and r~ferred to the Los Anycles Internatic~nal Ai~part parkiny as an example~ anJ stated ihat if the ticket booths were moved h~ck thi~ would accommodite quite a number of c.ars. Chalrman Tolar sCateci in nx~ving the booths back the:y would probably los~ 3 or 4 spbces but that they woul d pi tk ~p , ~ore storar~e . The Cotrunission diswsse~ several alternatives for redes(gning the cickec booth locotton for more storayc sNace. Mr. Schwebel stated that the o~ly tim~: there is a problem is abouc 30 minutes before an event at the Conv~~tion Centcr; that the guests at the hotcl arrive at s[aggcred intcrvals. Commissfoner DaviJ esked if the hotel Would be holding dances on weekends anymure, and Mr. Schwebel replied that when they cio~ the coordinator ~•~tll be sure to let the group or organizati~n know tl~ere are several entrances and~ if necessary, would provide alter~ate entries and set up tables~ etc. Comm~ssioner Herbst asked whac the intended r_harycs would b~ for the ticketed parking lot~ witl~ Mr. Scliwebel replyiny th~re woul~f bE. a S3.Q0 flat fec for those who did not have a tlcket validated~ and the only validated tickets wc~uld be tt» registerc~d hotel quests; that he dfd not wlsh to be in competttion with the City buc wished to provide m~re parking for the hotel. Commissianer Johnson stated that tf~e ~ictures had (ndicated traffic backing up onta Harbor, which is what tlie Cormiission did not wish to see happen, and Mr. Sr.hwebel r~eplied that he was tryin~ to sha~r they ceul~ ~tore traffic alony the curb ancf sti11 have the traffic flow in the f'rst iane. Commissioner Jol~nson replied it wou]J sti11 be in the street. Chairman Tol:~r irdicated he thought there was enouyh room for the t~affic ro pass hut that the ticket bc~oth.s should be mov^.d to prc ide more storage. He stated that if thls 10/10/77 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM15510N~ Octobcr i~~ t917 77-~53 EIR Cl1TEG~KIGAL EXEHPTION A~~O VARIANCC NQ. 2~62 l~~~ntinucd) varlance Is approvcJ hu would want it ticd to t't-is N~+~ ticu'ar 's`-`-' f^r ., ttcket booth so tht~t it could r~ot Ue convcrted at ~~ l~~t~~r J~t~~ ta a photo bc~oth~ etc, CAmmisslonesr Linn indic~ted lic wou1J liF:e co nove for denlal. Comn~i ss 1 ~ncr Ilerbs t at.~tcd he woul c1 I 1 ke tc~ sec thc bo~t',s mavcci ancl asked what the re:yuirements were for a setback o•~ ~larbor lioulevard~ a~~J J. J. T~shiro~ Asslstant Pianner~ replled there w~s a y0-fout setback requirement on lia~~or fioulevard. CtNnmissloncr I~erbst suc~yested mov i~~y t hc t, o ~ t t~ bf c kL f hom r lthc ufrant epar p of~the boothstoor gu~st p~r l: iny. He s t a t e d that there is on1Y 3" the curh~ nnd that a secand car would be stic~iny out into the street. Mr. Schwebel indicateci ti~ul t.~ opcn t!.^ tr:,fftc fluw this way would be directing the gucsts away f ror, *hc hotc 1:~nd then they woul u~c. wanJcr { ng around the par E.{ n:} 1 ot not kna+ i ny wl~ i ch w~y to ~o . Commissioner Linn 5u~ye5!'ed aliminatiny onc of thc cxiks and haviny uouUlr. cntrances to get thc traffic off the strect. Mr. Schwebel asked the Com~iission tr, cc~nsider a continu~~nee for two w~eks in order for hlm to present revised p1.3ns. ACTION: Commissi~ncr ticrbst offerecl a morio~~ scconded by Comnissioner David and MOTI~N Cn~RR~Lp (Gomrni~sioner Barncs bcint~ abs~:nt!~ that consideration of the aforementir~ned itam be continued to the rcgu~~~i onerntu~fres~~AnaceisPdinja~ganninc~ Commisslon of October 26~ 197J, ln order for tne pet t P ITEM N0. ~ EIR~~RICA~ EXEMPT~OP~-CLASS ~ TKUST`ANUASAVGfIGS~ASSOC1AT10N~~~0AMNorth Ma~~ON L ~~p N L S E I t10. ! Street~ Santa Ara~ CA 9?.701. AGENT: THE GOQDYEAR TIRE b RUBBER CQ.~ 6701 Sauth Central Avenue. Los Angeles, CA 90Ud1. Petitioner ~equcsts permissior~ to EST~9LlSN AF~ AUTOMOTI"" ~CPAIR. SHOP on property descrlbed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consistinn approxi- mately 0.7 acre havT-g a frontage of approxinwtely 15Q feet on the north _ de of Chapman Avenue~ having a maxim~~.i dept~ of approximately 20J feet, being located approximately 655 feet east of the centerline of Harbor Boulevar~f, and further described as ~+2'. West Chapman A.venue. Property presently class;fied CG (GOMHERCII~L~ GEyFqAL) ZONE. There was no one indicatinq their pressnce in opposition to the subJect ~etitlon, and althaugh thP staff report ~ ~teferredntoyandmmade'anparteofOthebminutes,j77 was not read at the public heariny, it TNC PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEO. It was noted that the Dlrector of Lhe Ptanniny D~partment has determined tf-at the proposed activity falls within the defini:ton of Section 3.G~~ Class 1, of Che Ctty of Anaheim Gutdelines to the Requirements `or an Envtronmental im~act Report and is, therefore~ categcrlcally exempt from th~ requlrement to file a~. EIR. 10/10/77 MINUTES~ ANAIIEIft CITY PLANNING CUMMI5SION~ Ottabcr 10. 1977 77-660 EIR C~ ATEGOftICAI EXEMPTION A~!U CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ~~0. 17-+1 (contfnued) ACf10N: Coi~xniss~oncr King offered Zesoiution Nc~. PC77-21f~ and moved fU~' its passage and ~aToptTon. that the AnAhelm Clty Planninq Cortmisyion does herehy gront Petition for Conditlonal Use Pc:rmit lio. f 1~~1 ~ subJect to Interdeportmentpi f.omni ttee recommendatlons. On roll ,:all~ the forer~ulny resolution was passed by thr. follvwing vot~: AYES : C~t1M I 55 I O~IL RS ; M, I NG ~ Dl1V I G~ IiERUST ~ JONNSON , l. I NN ~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIOP~CRS: NONE ABSEN7: C011f11 SS I QNtitS : DARIIES ITEM N0. ~ EIR NEGATIVC DLCLARl~TiON fUEiLIC HEARI~IG. OWrl~.n: ~Lt;CRTS(?~I'S~ IIIC. ~ P. 0. U U' tl L S t; M NU. 1I~~2 l~ax ?.Q~ tioisc~ Idaho ~s31~1. AGEtli: DAVI: GARL5011y P. 0. Dox 81'1~ l~rahclrn~ CA y:!Efiri. Petitic.,r~er requcs~s permi~siun tu E~TA[ILISH !1 DRIVE-TNF;QL'~H RES7AUR!\~!T t.',711 WAIVER OF (l1) M/\XIMUN NUME~ER OF fP,EL-STAHDINC, SIGrIS, (f;) PCRMITTEC I.OC~TION OF FRf.E-ST:',11DIIiG SIGNS, (C) MINIHUM DIST11tICE OCT1lCLN SIG~15~ ANn iD) NI~dIMU" NUNBCR OF PARK- IIJG SPACES on proper[y desc~ibed as a rectanrularly-shaped parcel of land con~.ls!~ng of approxlmately 0.!; acre ',~~cated at the suuthe~~st corne~ ~~f Oran;e Avenue and Broakhurst Street, haviny approximate frontaycs of t4c: fcet Qn t,.: south side of Orange Avenue and l~+b feet on the east side of Drookhu~s[ Strcet~ and further described as 600 So~:ii arookhu st Street. Property presently classified CL (COMMLRG;:.I~ LIHITED) ZONE. There was no one indic~~tinry their presencr_ in oppositl~~n to the sUrJ~~ct Petieian, and althouy~i the staff report to the Planning Conxni~sion datc~~i October 10, 1977 was not ~ead at th~ ~~ublic hearing~ it is referred tn and ~~~a~P a part of the minutes. tiob Merriam, cles iyner of the pro ~_ct ~~l th Davc Ca~•ltan ~ the ayent for petl t ioner ~ was present to answer any questions. TNE PUl3LiC HEARING w~15 CLOSED. AGTION: Comrnissioner Kiny offered a motian~ seconded by Canr~issi~ner David and MOTION ZA t~U (Comnissioner Barnes bciny absent) ~ that th~ A.~aheim Clty Planning Corm~isslon has revtfw+ec the subje:t prcject consistiny of a drive-through restaurant with waiver of minimum number of Narkiny t,paces or approximately 0.5 acre o` tand located at the so~itf~eas~ c~rner a` Oranye Avsnue and firookhurs[ Strcet, haviny approxfmate frontages of 140 feet on th south sidc of Orangc +.venuc and 148 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street; and doP~ hereGy app rove the Neya[ive Ueclaratior. fron th~ requirement to prep~re an e:n~iror,mental impact reNr`t on Lhc basis that there would be no siynificant Indlvidual or -:mulative adverse environmental impatt due to the approval of Chis Negative De~ aration since the Anahelm Gener~l Plan designates the subJecc property for ge:neral c,.~~ercla! land uses cammens~irate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved tn the prap~.sal; that the Initial `tudy submitted by thc petitioner indtcates no siynificant indivic;~al or cumulative adve >e environmental tmpacts; and th:+~ the Neyative Ueclaration substantiatiny tt~e foregoing findings (s on file in the City of Anahelm Plannlr,:~ ~ep~rtment. It was noted ehat wa(vers (a) maximum number of frce-st~nding signs pcrmitted, (b) permitted location of free-standing signs~ and (c) minimum distance between signs were daleted by modified plans submitted by the petitioner subsequent to the advertisemer~t. to/to/77 MINU7ES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Octobe~ 1Q~ 1'77 7'J-661 EIR NEGAT_IVE QEC_!ARATIQN__AND__CONDITIONAL USE PERMiT t~0, 1742 (c~ntinued) ACTION: Commissloner Ktny off~rcJ Itesolutlan No. PC77•21) and moved for iks passegc and a~cop I~on. that the Anahei~n Cltv Planntng Cormiisslan does he~eGy yrant Petlttnn for Conditlona) Use Permit t~o. 17G2~ in parl~ grantinc~ waivcr of minimu~n number of parktny spaces due ro the naturc of thc usc wns(stinq of botl~ sit-dawn and drlve-Ct-rcuqh food service~ and to tt~e size ~f tl~e pro~,erty which I(mit, provld(ng pdrking as required by Code~ and that denial uf subJec[ watver would dony the propcrty a privlfe~:e granted t~~ others haviny slinilar drive-thrc~u~~h restau~pnt facllitles, an~ subJect to I nterdeportmental C~~ ~- '~ ~ ~commer.:at ic~ns. On r~l l eal l~ khc fc. ~t~ resolutlon was passed by thc ~:,ll~~lnn vc~~c~: ,1YLS : COMI11 SS 10~1EftS ; Y.I WG ~ D~V I U, NER~iST ~ JONt~SON ~ l I NN ~ TOL/1R t~OCS : COHtiI ~S I OI~CP,S : !lONE ABSENT: C~NNISSInyf~RS: EiARt~ls Commissluner Nerbst offereci ~ n,~~ticm, seconded by Chairman Tolar and MOTI~II CARRIEU (Comrnissioner ltarnes beinc, ~;bsent}, Jirectin~ staff to moclify the pa~king ordtnAnce with reference [u Jrive-throug~i restaurants to eliminate tl~c developers havir~g to request varianees fur parkin~ for drive-throuyh restaurants. I TEI1 N0. 10 ~IR NEG E DECLAR{1TION PUBLIC HEARING. OIJ~lEftS: RANUALL R, AND ROSELYNNE CONUITIONAL USE ERMIT N0. 17~+5 A. I31VEt15 ANU WILLI.AM D. ANU YOLANDA RODER50~l~ 27~ ;'~Icst Bp'. l Road~ Anaheini, CA 32~~14. Peti tiuner requests ~e-mission to EST/1BLISN A MOTEL on p roperty consi~•iny af an irre9ularly-siiaped ~arccl of land cansisting of approximately 0,4 acre havin, a f~antage of approximatcly JO fect on the east aide of Statc College Boulevard~ haviny a maximurn depth of appr~ximately 2.~~+ feet~ and hein~ located approximately 210 fect soutt: of the cen[erlinc of Y,atella Avenue. Property prescntly classified ML (INUUSTRIAL~ LIMITED) ZO~IE. There was no one indicating their ~resence in opposition to sub_ject petition~ and atth~ugh the stafF report to the Planniny Commission dated October 10~ 1y77 was nat read at the publ ic hearir,y, i t is re~ferre•J to and made a part o rhe minutes. Timothy Kraft. architecc, was present to a~swer any questiuns. TliC PUBLiC f1EARItJG WAS CLOSEU. Chairm~n Tolar asH.cd tt~e status of the 5 parkiny stalls ref~rred to in the staff reporc which do not meet the Code reyuireme:nt tn relationst~tp ta 12 feet~ a~d J. J. Tashlro, Asslstant Planner~ indicaced tf~ere are ~ stails ad~acent to the northerly property llne which arc unu.abl~ unless widened to 1'l. feet. Mr. Kraft stated that the prablern has been solved for the front parkii7y stall next to the street by removing the nor[t~ prnperty iine wall because of similar zoniny on the northerly property ad~acen*_ to ;he service station. Ne stated that by eliminating tne wall~ he s~lved the problem of the car doors not beiny abie to open but that he could not a~gur with the concerns af the insid~ car~. He asked if the 17-foot space was an ordinance requi rernent. 10/10/77 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM GITY PLAN~~I:~G COMMISSION~ October 10~ 1977 77~6G2 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARA?'ION AND COt~UITIONAI USE PERMIT N0._ 17N5 (continuod) Annika Santalaht{~ Asslscant ~~i~ctor for i:unin_y~ stated this was based cn the requfreme+~t thet In ;~0•d~grce parking stalls cars havc to havc nciequats space to back out~ and thot wider pari;(ng s?aces is onc solution or ttie clrivrways could be a few feet longer. Mr. Kr~ft referrcd to the (nsidc conflyuratiar of the buildln,y~ Indlcating they have 27 feet and are tr~iny ta accomnaclate 3 c~arking stallti. lie stated thc or,ly way to get the addltional space is by pushiny aut the snutherly wall of tlic builcfing~ then thev woutd be encroaching Into the parkiny on t~e outside. Ne stated they ~ould n,~~rc~slcht Inte, that area but would prefer nat to ~o this as tt~at would bc disallgninq the downsta(rs wa1) from the upstaf rs wall; that tt would l~e rrx~re difficuit~ I~owev~r, it could be done. Co~missioner King sug<~ested that these parkin~ ~talls he designated for cam~act cars. ~1r. Y.raft :,tatcd Cl~is ~~ould hP s~ a~liitic.m, and since the problem witF~ tha front ~~+tsfde stall on Stat~ College has becn solved wtth thc elirnl~atiun of thc property Ifnc wzll~ the only stalls to be concerned with are the ones fnside the builcflnc~ an~ 1~dlcate~ chey c~uid designate certain stalis ~or compact cars. Annika Santalahti~ Assistant Director f~r Zonin9i stated tl~at the Code requir~s 8-il2 x 19 foot spaces~ and excess ~arking could be for compact cars~ if there are excess parking stalls. Cortmis5lonPr Johnson indlcated i~e did no[ believc tfterc wcre any extra parking spaCes p roposed. Jack White~ Deputy City Attorney, pointed aut th~t If the petitior.er wished to deviate from the Code regar~liny the parking~ he woul~ have to apply for a varlance~ but if the canditional use permii is approved, it would be up to the petitloner to provide parking according to the Code. Mr. iCraft clarified that if the canditlnnal use permit is approved, it would be app~oved subJect ta the petltloner provfdlnq ~ parking stalls on the north side of the build(ng on the instde that ~re 12 feet wide, and Miss Santalahti replled that they can be either S2 feet wide or addittonal back-up space provid~•d. Mr. Kraft asked if they were in ayreement that the outside parking stali in the front is alright. Chaln,w n Tal~~r stated there is no agreemenc on anything; that if the cortditional :~se permit is appr~ved i[ would be up to the petitioner to sati5fy the Code in relatlonshlp to the parking; and that the: ~onditional use permit would be allnwing the motel. ACTION: Commissioner !Cing offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner David and MOTi0P1 CA- P.RI~D (Commissioner Barnes being absent), that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commtssion has revie.~:ed the subJect property consistin9 of a motel on approximately ~.~i acre of land~ having G frontage of approximately !0 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard, having a m~xirnum depth of appr~ximately 2~~+ feet~ and beiny located approximately 210 feet south of the centerline of Katella Avenue; :~nd does hereby approve the Negative Declaration from thc re~;uirement to prepare an environmental impact report on the b~st~ tf~at there would be ~~o significant individual or cumutative adverse e~vironme~tai impact due to the approval of this Negaifve Declaration since the Anaheim GenerAl Plan designates 10/10/77 MINUTES~ ~NAIIEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, October 10~ 1977 77-663 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARl1TION AND CONDITIO;:AL USE PEftMIT t~0. 174y (continued) tho sub.~oct p ro~erty for can~:rclal-rec~eation land uses commensur~ke with the p~oposal; thex no sensitive ~nvironmental impacts are involved ;;, the proposal; that ti~e Inlttal Study submttted by the petlttoner indlcatE.s nc~ significant individual or cumulative adv~rsc environrt~:nt~l impacts; anJ that thc IJeyative Occlorat(on substantlatinc~ thc foregoing findings is on file In the: C(ty of Pnaheim Planning Department. ACTIQN: Commissioner King offerecl Rasalutlon ~~o. PC77'Z~S •'+r~~ ~ved for Its passa!1e and a opt an~ that thc Anal~eim City Planninq Comnisslon cioes hereby grant Petltion for Conditional Use Permit No. 17~~a~ subject to the petitloner's stlpulation to satisfy all Clty of Anal~cim stanJar~ls rcyarJing parl:lny Q~dces and ~ubJect tu Interdepartmental Conxni ttee recommenJations. an ~ol l col l~ the fore~~~in•~ r~S~lution was pc,sse~i t~y the fol laving vote: 4YES : CO~~MI SS IO~ICP,S : KI NG, 0/1V I U~ I+ERkiST ~ JOII~~SOtd ~ L INN ~ TUL~R IJUES : COMrtI SS I UiiERS : NUNE ABSEt~T: C~-1M15510P~CRS: BARIIES 1 TCh1 N0. ! 1 EIR FICGATIVE DECLARl1TIOIJ PU-;LIC IIEARING. OWNERS: SOL~110W AND CLARA J. GOND N L U E C MI N0. 17a1 KAIIUCI., >~G kast Almond~ Orange, Cl1 ~2666. AGENT: "-'-"- - TOM I VEY ~ 50G kas t A1 mnnd, Ora:~ge ~ cn ~2G66. Petitioncr requests permission to ESTABLISH A MOTfI on property described as a rec[anyularly-shaped parcel of l~nd consisting of approxi-nately U.6 acrc having a frontaye of approximately 1~1 feet on the north stde of Lincoln Avenue~ haviny a maximum depth of approximately 246 feet~ bein~~ located approxi- rnately 7~ti~ feet west of tfie centerline ~f firookl~urst Street~ and f~rtlier described as 2255 W~'st Lincoln Avenue. Properly presently classified ~L (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE, There was no one indicatin~~ their pre~_nc~~ in opposition to subJect petitlon~ and although th~ staff report to the Planning Conunission dated Octoher 10~ 1971 was not read at the pub'ic I~earing~ ~t is referred to and m~ad~ a part of the minutes. Tom Ivey, agent for the petitioner~ indicated his presence to answer questior~s. THE PUkiLIC HEARING NAS GlOSEO. AC_ TIQN: Commis5ioner K~ny ol'fered a motiun~ sewnded by Commissione~ Uavid and MOTiON CARRIED (Commissioner aarnes beiny absentj. that the Anaheim CiCy Planning Commission has revtewed tf~e sub~ect propasal consisting of a rn~tel in the CL (Corm-~rcial~ Limlted) zone on approximately O.G acre of land~ havinc~ a frantage of approximately 101 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue~ havin9 a maximum deFth of approximately ?_46 feet, bcing located approximately 7~~5 feer west of the centerline of t3rookhu~~st Street; and does hereby appruve the Neyative Decl~ration from the requirenent to preFare an ciivi~onmental impact repor[ on the basis that there would be no significant individual or cumuiative adverse envirqnmental impact clue to the approval of this Negattve DeclarAtion since the Anaheim Generat Plan designates the subj-~t property for general commercial land uses corxnensurate with *he praposal; that no sensitive envir~nmental impacts are invulved in the pro~osal; that the Initial Study submitt~~d by the petitioner indicates no significant in~'(vidual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and tt~af. the Negative Declaration substantiating the ~oregoing findings ts on file in the City of rlnaheim ~'lanning Depa~tment. to/t0/77 MINU7ES~ ANANCIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ October 10, 1977 77'~6~ EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAI USE PERMIT N0. 1751 (conttnucd) AC'iION: Commissiuner Kln~ offered Resolutton No. PC77-219 And rr~ved for Ics passagr, and acZoptTon~ th~t the Anaheim City Plar~ning Commtssion dr,;s hcr~by grant Petltton for Conditivnal Use Permit ~Jo. 17>1, subJect to the petitioncr's stipulation to providtng trash enclosure As roquired by th~ Sanitot'on Olvislon and to providinc~ parkln9 spaces tn acc~rdance with thc Cf Ly of Anatielrn stendarcis as approved by the Traff (c Cn~ineer~ ~nd subJact to Interdepartmental Comtnl ttcc retorrmen~f:~tlons. On roll call~ thr foregoln~~ resolutic~n was passed by the following vote: AYCS : COMMI SS I Ot~kRS : Y.I I~G, DAV I U, -~Eal3ST ~ JQ11t~5~-~ ~ L I Ntl ~ TOLAR NOES~ CQMMISSIONERS: NONE Al35LNT: CoMMI5SI0N~R5: BARNCS (ITEM N0. 12 WAS f.OtJSIUERED A7 THE ENU OF TNE NCCTING.) I TEM I~O. 12 EIR CATI:GOf~ICAL EX~MPTION-CLASS 1 PII~LIC NEI1RINf. 0'~II~ERS: JAMES M. PERUMEIIN AND COtJDIT10~lAL USC PERMI NQ. 1/>2 JO~IN P. COIiLON~ 21bC~ Vacat(on L~nc~ Nuntington -'-'-' fleach~ CA 92G1•6. Petitioner requests permission Lo ESTl14L I S11 A CIISI'ON P111 NT t NG AND VAN CONVER51 ON Fl1ClLITY on property described as an irreqularty-shaped ~aarcel of land consist(ng of approximate~y 0.6 acre having a front.~ge of appfoximt~tely 157 feet on thc north slde of paly Street, haviny a maxlmum de~th of approxlmately 201 fcet~ be(ng located approxt- mately 6t~G feet south of the centerl!ne of Via Burton 5trect~ and further described as 1440 Daly Strect. Propcrty presentlv classificd ML (INOUSTRIAL~ LIMITE D) ZONC. There was na one (nd(catfn, their presence in oppositlon to the subject petttion~ and although thc: stnff r~port to the Planniny Commission dated Qctober 10~ 1977 was not reAd at the public hearing~ it is referre~f to anJ made a part of the minutes. ,lames M. Perumean. one ~f ttic petit:ic~ners, stated hc was applying fr,- ;his cond(tlonal use perm(t for a custom painting and van conversion facility and was present to answer any questions. THE PU~LIG NEARING WAS CLOSEO. Commissioner Herbst asked if al~ N•~rk would be dane on the inside of tne facility~ and Mr. P~rumean repl ied that 1 t wou'~i, It was determine~l that tiie Director Qf the Planning Department has determined that the proposed activity falls within Che definitic,+~ of Sec[ion 3.~1~ Class 9~ of the City nf Anaheim Guidelines to [I~e Requirernents for an Cnvironmental Impact Report and is~ therefore, categorically exem~t from thc requirement tu file an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC77-220 and moved for its passag~e and a~optT~n~ that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission does hereby grant Petitlon for Condi:ional Use Permit tla. 1i52, subject to the petitioner's stipulations that all repatr wc~rk wiil be done wholly inside the building an~ there will be no outdoor vehicle storage on the premis~s o*_her than the parked vehicles to be serviced~ and that the anttcipated hou~s of operatton will be from 3:00 a.m. to 4:3~ p•+n., Monday through Friday, with approximateiy 10 employees. and subJect to Interdepartmental Comm(ttee recommendatlons. On roll call, the foregoiny resolutlon was passed by the following vote: AYE5: COMMISSIONERS: KING, DAVIU, HERSST~ JONNSON~ LIr.N~ 1~lAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: HONE 10/10/77 ABS:NT: COMMISSION~RS: BARNES MINUTCS~ ANAl1EIM CITY PLA~~KI~lG COMWIS~IOtI, Octobcr 10~ 1977 71•b65 I TEtti t10. 1 ~'TSVr t AL I MPl1CT R~POR? N0. H~ PUDL 1 C II~I1R1 NG. 041NEtt; ANAHC I M M~M~R IAL IIOSP I TAL ~ SUPPLENLNT I~O. 1111 West La Palma Avenue~ Anahefm, CA ~120~1. UNU 0 l E ~RM N0. ~3 AGCI~T: RO~IAID J. MA^.OTT, 1111 West La Palma Avenuc~ -- Anehelm, L~ 92h(al. Petitloner rcquests permisston to ExrAiio n~~ EXISTI~IC~ HOSPITAL an proporty ciescribed as an lrregularly-shnped parc 1 of 1 and consistiny ~f app~oximntely 11.~ Acres loceted at th~ nort-iHCSt corncr of La Pa~ma Avenuc. dnd Nest Strcet. hoving t+pp~oxim~te fronteqos of gyQ feet nn the nort~h~ A~~~ ~ ~~ W~stBLaaPalmr~uAvenuc~f~~Propr~ty plresant1yc1asslFledSCUStroet~ and furthcr descrtbe (COMMERG il1L ~ OFF I CE At40 PKOFESS IOt~AL ) ZONL. Thera wos no onc lncfi cat iny the) r pre~ence i n oppos 1 t fan to tl~e aub Ject ~eti tlon, and althouyh thc staff report to thc Plannin9 Comnission Jntc~i Uctober 10, 19'17 ~as not rcad at the pul~lic I~ear(ny~ 1C Is refcrrc~l to and made a~+~rt r:f thr mir,utes. aandy l3osc:h~ architect with Uan RowlnnJ b llssocia[es~ 1~~~ 4lcst La Palma 1lvenue, Ansheim~ was prescnt to a~,swer any c~ucst(cros . THC PUI~LIr, NEl~RItIG Wf~S CLQSEJ. Mr. ~osch explei~ed thc petitlaner pro~wsas to removc~ the existin~; ~lder hospitol structurc and add a nurth winy~ cast ~~+inq ancl a scrvicc buildin~~~ a total of ~~,22Q squarc fcet; that an emerycncy helistop woul~l ue 2~' fcet ahovc gra~lc on thc roof af the proposed new ~orth winy; that veh~icul~r access to the hospi tal com~lex woul d be via tw~ )~-foot wide driveways; ~ne3 that there~ wi 1{ bo JDG parkirtig spaces in ecco~doncc w{th Cocle requi rements (6W~ s4~nces rr.yui reci t~y Code) . ACTION: Commissioner DaviJ offcrc.l a n~otion~ Sccondcd by Commissioner King ~nd MOTION G R Ep (Commissloner l3a~nes beinc~ abs~~~t) ~ tha[ Sunplemrnt No, 3 ta Environmental Impaet Re~ort ~Jo. t39 for tl~e proposeJ Phase IV JevcluF~ment of Anah~im ~ier*x~rial Ilas~~ital located on an 11-acrs sitc nortfiwest of thc Intersecti~n of La P~1m~~ Avenue and 41Est ~tree[. having ,_en consl~iered this date by the Anaheim City Planning Commissian and cvidence~ both written a~d oral ~ h~v(ny been presentec' to supplement E:IR No. ~`3. Supplement No. 3- finds that patential proJect-generate~l incllvidual and cumulative advcrse Ir~acts have been reduced tu an acceptab 1 c: 1 eve I by eonforrnance wi th C 1 ty p 1 ans, po i i c i es anci ordl nances : and Elk No. 89, Supplement No. 3, eunforms to tt~e Cal i far~la Envi ronmental Qunll ty llct and to City and State CIR Guidelines a~~1 ther~fore~ based upon sulement~~oati~on, the Anaheim City Planning Cammissic~n do~s hPre~y ccrtify ~IR ~~o. 8y. Supp ACTION: Commissioner David offerect Resolution No. PC77-=21 and moved fo~ its pessaye ~nd adopt~nn, that the Anaheim City Planniny Comnission daes hereby grt~nt Petition for Landttlonal Use Permlt No. 1753~ subJect to Interde~artmental Comml[te~ recomnendations. On rol l cal l. the foreyoir,y r~sol ution was passed by the fol lowi ng vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: KING~ DAYID, IIER45T~ JOI~~~SON~ I.iNN, TOLAR NOES: CONMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COHf~II SS I ONERS : BARt~ES to/ to/77 MINUTE.S~ l1NA~IE IM CITY PLA~INING COMMISSIOhI~ Octobr.r 1Q~ 1~7') J7-666 ITEN h10. 14 -----~- E I R CATCGOR I Cl1L EX~NPTI 0~1-CLASS 1 PUUL I G IIEARI ~JG, OWNCR; STI;ART AL/1N MESSt~ I CK, N t M N. a 1(,00 South An~~lreim E3pulevttrcl~ Su) [e C~ A~ahe~im~ CA 92~'l;. l1GE'~T: R.T.M. WEST, INC., 12~1Q0 Garden Grov~: lloulc:varcl~ Sul t~ 1)1 ~ Gardcn Grovc~ CA g2F,~i3. Petitl~nc;r requcsts pcrrnissinn to C~f'I1NU AN EXISTII~G DftIVC-711ROUG11 RL'ST~1URA'!7 WIT11 WAIVER OF MII~Ih1UM I~UMuER OF P/1RI:I~~G Sf'ACLS Un pr~perty descrit~eci as A rectan_yularly-sliaped p~rtel of lanJ con~ is ting nf ~~pproxirnatcly ~).7 acrc havin~i ~~ frcmtaye of npprc,x(riaccly 1;2 fect on the east s i cle nf Ilorbor bouievar•cl, naviny a m~+ximur~i depth of apprc,ximc~tely 20~ fe~et ~ being l~c+~teci approximetely ~c)'3 feet suutl~ of thr centr,rl inc uf ~Orangewood Avenue~ anct further ~ics:ribed os 21~i~+ South Harbor Boulev~rd. Property presently classifiecl CL (CUMNLP,CI AL~ L IMITLU} lONE. There w~~s no onc Indicatiny thcrc presence (n appusition to the sub,ject petition~ and altl-,ouyh the staff r.~pnrt r~ t~,~ Pl~nnin<~ CommicS(r~n ~i,~t~d QctoGer 1~J~ 1~,'7 was r±ot read at the pubitc h~arin~~~ it fs r~fcrrecJ to and madc a part of thc minutes. Curt Don.;t, w1 th R,T.M. '~Jesl, Inc.. ~ c~ycnt fur the petition~r, ref~rred to the Traffic Engineer's reconurwn~l.~tlem tl~at one ciriveway be close~ on Ilarbor poulevard. lie indlcated there are th ree accesses to the prop~~rty and that the Traf f f r_ ~n~i nee~r's recommendat (on to close o-ie drivewr~y ~jnd recirculntt~ the t.rafflc created hy the drive-throu~h lanc had been revlewed with thr: Traffic Cnyinecr, Ne statcJ hc ~lid not fecl it would bc feasiblc; that he apprec(atecl the prc~blern ~~f an overabunrlance of dr(ve accesses off Narbor Boulevard, but he did not thinkwhat is bein~~ proposed solvcs an intcrnal trafflc problem, He stated one solution was to close the n~~rth access anci recircul~te thc traffic through t`:e drive- throuyh to thc south acc;ess, brinyiny it .~cross lhe front of the existiny build(ng. He felt t~-is would crisate yreater probler~s with tr;affic off Ilarbo~ Boulevarcl~ plus it would create a problem for traff(c that is parking on the north prop~rty llne because it would become a dead-end type parkiny configuration liaviny to hack out and circulate around the back of thr_ buildin~ <7nd use the s~uti~ Jrive, tle stt~ted there was also a rec:ommendation fc~r yettiny a reciproca) drive uasement wi tl~ Che adjacent properiy owner but that thls property owner Jld not fincl tl~is acceptablc as it would encumb~r nis property. THE PUf3LIC HEARIIJG WAS GLOSED. Comnissioner Kiny referred to pagc 1~~-b~ itern 9~ reyardiny the proposed drive-up lane to the exlstiny drive~up window. and indicated he had inspected tne property and did not see an existiny ~rive-up window. Mr, Danat r~plicd thac there is no exi~ting drive-up wfndow. Com~issioner King asked haw many customers would be corning (n from Acama Street to the east, and Mr. Donat replied that hc haJ no way ~f knowing that. fie stated he a~sumed that street would be used for deliveries because a truck would probably flnd it easier to use that entrance off Aeama since that is where the serv(ce entrance is~ plus surtounding ne i ghbors wou 1 d perh~ps wal k to tt~e res taurant . Chair~~~an TQIa~ asked Mr, Donat to identify the driveways which the Traffic Engineer has recon~mended clasing~ whlch he did. Commissioner Kinyindicated he felt the drlveways were well placed. Commissione~ Nerbst stated it appeared the petitioner I~ad added a dining room which cr~eated the parkin~ problem. Mr. Do~at replled that [his was one of the uniquenesses of this request; that Lhe proJect had been submttted to the Building Division and has been plan-checE:ed pending minor to/t0/77 MINUTES ~ ANAhEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI5510N~ Uctobar 10~ 1977 77-G67 EIR cATEGORICAL F.XEr~PTIO~i AI~U - CONUITIONAL `~-- USE PERHIT N0. 1754 (c~ntlnucd) modi flcations. Ne stated thc exlsting condit(onal use permit ls f~r a drive-up~ drive- throuc~h typc r~:steura~~t ond has S7 parking spaces. a~J that tt~e property Is underdeveloped now. II~ statec' that the buil.]Ing has been remodeled~ odding adclltlon~) dinine~ facllit(es to the frant~ charying its use. Ile stated thc awner wante~f to add A drive-through lan~ wt~ieh put the use back Into tF~r. Rrevtous cateyory~ ond tl~at he was beln~ ~enalited ior the addi tlona) sit-~iown facilit(cs. He stAtcd that squarc f~~otc-ge is stf11 used to determine the parki ng reyul remrnt, and that the pnrkiny reyul rement for thc s i t-down restaurant 1 s one ~pacc per 125 squ~re fect . and that the requt rement for a drive-through restaurant ls one space per 5Q square fcct. Chai rman Talar iridicated he did not envislun this development with parkiny waiver as belny as e rl t I ca 1 as the one tl~e Commi ss i on liad p rev i ous I y opp~oved . Commissionar HerL~~t indlcate~ he was c~ncerned that approval would create dn e~lJitiunal Nari~lny problem, .~~J asked haw many t~bles the facillty would have, Mr. Donat replicd that thc exisciny buiidiny h~s a c<+p~city for seatiny 12~ that thc propased facllity ,~i11 scat !0, and that there wiil be J cr-ployees per st~ift. Comr-ilssioner Flerbst: was c~ncerned that there wer~ 32 useful parl:in,y spaces with a seaxlny capacl ty of 70. an~. Nr. Donat repl ied that norr~wl ly there is morc thAn one person per car. It was noted tl~at t;ie Dlrector of the Planni~y DeE~arcment i~as detcrmined that the proposed act ivl ty fal Is wi thin thc Jef ini tton of Section 3,01 ~ Class I~ of the Ci ty of Anahelm Gui ciel ines to the R~~qulrements for an Envi ronrnental Impact Report and is, tlirrefore~ catEgorlcally exemp~: from th~ requirement to File an EIR. ACT ION: Commiss(one~r King offered Resolutio~ l~o. PC77-222 nnd moved f~~r its passaye and ~opCTon~ that the Anahelm C i ty Plannin~ Commiss ic~n dc,es hereby grant Peti [ion for Cond(tional Use Per~nie No. 17a'+, wlth waiver of rninimum number of p~rl;inc~ spaces being g~anted due to the naturc of ti~r. use~ r.onsisting of both sit-down and drive-throu~h food service, o~ the basi~5 that th~; size of thc property lir,its the provisto~ of parking as requlred by Code anci that denial of subject waiver would deny the prop~rty owner a p~ivileye yranted to others ~iaving slmilar drivc-though faciiities. and subJect to interdepar[mental Gorxnittee ~ecoamendatians. Gn rol) call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by Lhc followiny vote: ~YES: GOMMISSIOhIERS: KItJG~ DAVID, I~ERElST~ JONNSO~:. LINN~ TOLAR FIOES; COMMIS~IOtiERS: NONE ABSCNT; CO~~MISSIUNEFS: BARNES 10/10/77 ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM ~ITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ October to~ 1977 71-66p ITlM N0. 1;; REPORTS ANf? REGnMME NUAT I ONS I TEH A. RECLA551 F I CP~T I ON N0. }41~-40 - M-endmcn t tci the cond i t i ons . Thc staff repart to tha Planninq Commissio~ deteJ October 10~ 1977 ~,as presented~ Indicetiny iha sub,Ject property is a r~ctan~ulnrly-shoped parce) of land tonsist(~q of Appraxin-atel~~ 2: ocres havinq approximatc frantages of il?fi feet on Che north stdQ ~f Bal) Road and G2~ feet on the west siJc of Urookl~urst Street~ and furthcr described as tf~e Brookhurst Sl~oppiny Gentcr. Thc petttion~~r requests an arnendment ta the con~litions of Resoluti~m No. 790(1 so that Reclassiflca;ion No. ;~~-;~,-~~0 may be finalized, The amendment wauld deletc Cond(t(an Nos. 7 and y. Suf~ j ec [ reques t i s a rec~u i reme:n t o1 thc~ cond 1 t i ons of ~~~~rava 1 of Var I ance No. 2v~a for watvar' ~f i~~ii~i~~~ui~i iiw~~Ler ~f N~rhii~y y~,d~e~~ diluwiny a ~e~rc~.rc t~~ 91.9 spac.e~~ whlcl7 wes ~~ronteJ by the Pl.~nninc~ Corm~issior~ on Uecember 2(1~ 197G. ACT101~: Gomm(5s1~?ncr I;in~~ offcred a rx~ti~n~ seconded hy CoMMissloner pavid dnd MOTION CARRILU (Cummissioner l~arnes beiny abscnt)~ that thc Anahcir~ City P{ann(n9 Ccxm~ission d~ns h~reby recomr~enc: to the CI ty Counci 1 tltat an ~~mcnclment to Resolution I~o. 2~1QQ, deleting C~ndi tlon ~~os. I~~~ci 7, `~c ap~roved. ITL~S l~. CU~~UITIUNAL USE PEKMIT N0. 1132 - Rc<~uest for approval of revised rlan for a mc~tc~ 1 . Thc staff rcport to the Planniny Gonwnission dated Octob~r 1~~ 1~?JJ was rresented~ indlcAtin<~ [hc subject pro~erty is an irrcc~ularly-shaped parcel uf lanJ c;onsisting of ap~ruxir~~ate:ly 1,~ acre I~.i~in~~ a front:+ye of a~proxir.,atcly lhb feet on the south side of 0~•an9ewou~l Avenuc~ hovin,~ a iaxfmur~ ~rpth nf an~~r~~xirnately ~+1~, feet, and bcing located ap{~roximately 20~ feet wc5t c~f [he cen[erl inc~ uf Narbor Eioulevar~l, The ap~;licant (Carl and Doris Arthofcr) requcs[s appr~val of reviseJ plans for a motel. Con~fitlc~nal Use Permit No. 17.32~ to estat,lish a rrK~tel wicti ~~aivers of maximum structural heiyht ancl n~inf~nw~i si~e setback~ was c~ranted on July 1L~ 1!117~ subjett to retlasslfieation of the property fram ~S-A~43,)0) (Residential/Anriculcura!) to CL (Cor,mercial~ Linited) be(nq fileci, The rev(se~1 plans indicate b1+ units instead ~f 5~; 357-square foat. unit size comQared with 33C square fcet; 1J2~-syuare foot manager's unit cc~ipare~l to 1413 square Feet; anJ G~i par~:ing spaces compared with ~~~ on rhe oriyinal plan~ with site coverage being 3~b on thc revisecS plan compared w(th 2~+~ on the oric~Inal plan. Corm~issiuner Linn felt a public hearing should be set to cansider these revised plans. Jack Uhitey Oeputy City At~orney, stated tlie Planniry Commission should set a public heariny for consideration of the revise~ plans if tl~ey felt the increase in the number of units was 5iyntficant. Tfie Casunission discussect whetfier or not a puGlic lieariny shoulcf be set, and it was the general feeliny that due to ttic development on the surraundiny prapert(es~ publi~ hearing would not be nee~essary. ACTION: Conim(ssioner Johnson offered a rnotion~ seconded by Comnissioner King and MOTION A t D(Commissiener Barnes being abSent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the revised plans for a motel for Conditional Use Perm(t No. 1732. 10/l0/77 MIN~'ES. ANAIIEIM CITY PLAN~~II~G COMMISSIO~~~ October 10~ 1~77 77"~~'`~ ITEN C. COt~DITI0Nl1l USE PFRM17 NQ. 1;~> - Requ~st fnr an cxtenslon af _ti~n~, 7hc staff report to the Plannfnc~ Commission ~u~cJ Octobcr 1~~ 1a77 was {~resented~ incflcoting the ~uhject property Is a rectane~ularly-shapecl parcel of land consisting of approxfn~ately 5.75 acres locatecl on the nortl~ side Uf' La Palme Avenue~ a~~roxi~nately 2(i~1 fecst west af thc centerllne of imperlal Nigl~waY. The appllcant (Anthony U'Arcy nf Colciwcll aenker~ ae~ent for Sutherland l3u(1Jinq Materlals) requests a onc-year extension of tlmc. ln or~cr to meet the conditions of approvel. ACTIQN: Commisslane~r Kin~~ ~ffereJ a mo[fon~ secondecl by Cormilssicncr David r~~d NOTION RRIEO (Comrnlssioner Darnes b~lny absent)~ th~t the Anaheim Clty P1a~nln~ Commission does hcreby grant a ~ne-year cxtension of cimc for Gonditional Usc Perc~it No. 1;~~~ to explre December f~~ 1~1~~. lTEM 0. TF~ITATIVE Tc~A~T N~1. csl~~f~ (CITY OF ORAllf,f.) - 1"15.3 ~cre~s adjaeent tu the C~ t of Anahci~~~. Annik~i Santalahtl~ Assistant Director for woning~ exrleined John D. Lusk F Son 'iad flled a 322~ 1 ~t subd 1 v I s i on rnap wi th the C i ty of Oran~~e ~equcs C i ng zon 1 n,y af It 1-f~~)~0 wi tt~ sevre r and water to be ~rov~ded by ti~e City o~ OrancJe; [hat the pronose~l Tent~itive Tract Map No. a15f~ clacs not Ind(catc propused Vla Cscc~llo cr~ssing the su~Ject arc:a; that the adoptcd Canyon Area Generol Plan dcpicts propose~ Via Escollo dircctly conneccing as a sec~ndary between Neats Avenue and Nohl Ranch Roc~J anJ that on the aJopted artcrial streets and hiyhway m~ps of the Circulati~~n f:Vement of tfie ~naheim General P1An~ Vla Escolla ls descrtt,ed as secondary between Met-Ls ~venuc ancJ Nohl Nancl~ Road. ACTION: Gontmissiuner Llrn offered o c~tion~ second~d by Cornnissioner David an~ MOTION ARR LU (Comnissionrr Darncs bciny absent)~ that [he Anehelm City Planniny Conrnission does instruct staff to forwarJ corxnunications to thc Oranqe Ci ty P1anning Comrniss i~n tf:at the Anaheim Cicy Pt~nning Comrnisslun has ~fetcrmined that 7entative T~gct Ma~ ~~a. 8151+ is not in compliance w~th the a~optEcl Canyan or ~Irculatiur~ Elr.ment of the City af Anaheim Grncra) Plan. ITEH E. RkCLASSIF ICATI01~ N0. 73-7G-37 At~U CONOiTI011AL USC Pf.f1HIT I~OS. 14~~> At~[- 1~~4G ° Request for approval of revise~ plans. Thc staff repor*. Co the Planninq C~mmission datc~d October 1~~ 1977 was presented~ indicatiny the subJect pr~perty consists of apprnxlmately 7.0 acres and is located ac the northeast corner of McK(nnon Drive and Lakeview Avenue~ ~vitf~ approximate frontages of 26A feet on the north side of HcKinnon Drivc an~1 720 fcet on the east side of Lakev(ew Avenue. Tt ~ppl(cant (Georye Rlley, architect) requests approval of revisec7 plans for Re .assification Na. 7j-7'+-37, Conditional Use Permit No. 1~+~+5 and Conditional Use Permit No. ~4~6. Subjec.t reclassificati~n and conditional use permits l'o develop a commercial shopp(ny center~ service station~ and facility for the treatment and educatian of pediatric psyct-faeric patients was approved by the City Council on February a~ 1~7~~~ ar~d a I~eyative Declaration was approve~l conjunctive)y. Commissi~ner Linn askecl if there was an Cnvironme~tal Impact Report on the proJect and indicated he was concerned since th~ Negative Declaration wss approved in 1974 and a lot af changes have occurred since then. fle asked if the N~gativP Dectaration would st(11 be valid at tliis time~ and Oeputy City Attorney Jack Nhite indicated that the Negative 1~/lc~/77 MII~UTES~ ANAI~rIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ October 10~ 1977 J1.67~ ITEM_E (contlnued) Ueclaratlon wo~~id stlll be v~~lid unless si~nificant chonges I~ave been made In the project which w~uld chongc thc environmenCal 1m~ACts. Ile indicnted (f thc Commission felt ch~ngss In the proJac~ would make e slyn4ficant dlff~rencc in the adverse environmental Impacts~ thpn e new ~Ie~~ative DeclarAtl~~n should be prepnred at thls ttme, Commissioncr King stated thc Env(ronmental Assessment Cammltte~ would have detcrmined wl~ether ~r nnt a IJeyative Dec;a~atian was requlred~ an~J Jack White incllcateJ he was not sure whether or not this proJect had t,cen revlewed by thls c~-nmittee and felt the Cornnisslon shoulJ maE:e a deterrnination at this tlme whether or nnt a new Neyative Decleratiun shoul~ b' requ(reJ, Cl~oirman T~lar Indicated he was concerne~ about trafftc~ n~tsc~ .k~.~ ancJ asked if these plens were basica) ly the same as thc~se wh{cti had ber.n ~~revio~,sly ~i~r~r~vP~1, Annika Santal~hti~ Assist~nt Direc.cor far Zoninq, rxplalned the pl~ns were ba5ic~-lly the somc w( th an a~id i t ion of c~mmcrc i~ l ,pacc <~n~1 that tiic G( cy Cuunc. i 1 had to takc the f i na l action on thls pro,ject an~ that it was brouqht bef~rr_ the Plnnnlny Corrmission for thetr input to thc Gity Gauncil. Ghairman Tolar indi~ntc~1 hc ~ti~i not thln4. the Planning Commission coulcl c~ive any valtd informatlon when the whnle Comm-ssion has i.han~~r_d since lhe project war, ~reviously approved, ~nd I~e fclt the planr~ wer.r. chanyed dr~stlcally. Mary Ulnn~lurf~ 131 La Paz, llnai~cim~ st~1~C<) Chr. or(ginal fin~ing of facts In the Environmental /15sc~sment Forr,i w~s fi led in Deccmber 1~73~ ~n~l that sinc~~ that tfine a lat of changes had been ma~ie; tha t the C i tY ~~~ has a Scen i c fl i ghway E lernent [o the General Flan ana the 'il Frceway i, J~si~~nc~teJ to be a scenic hiyhway; that the lncreased trafflc is not consielered; an~l that subJect ar~:a is in the flao~l plain arca; anci that the project does not meet the spccificatians of thc tiational Air Resources ~oard on air polluttan from a secondary sourcc~ a servicc station, Shc stnt~d shc felt th(s mattcr sl~ould be set for a pubf(c ~~cariny; that this is a sensitivic environmcntal arca bec~use of thc rivcr and the bike trail; and that it shoulJ be brough~ beforc Che IIACMAC Corr~mittee before going to City Counc(1; anJ that an environ~acntal impact rcport should bc filed. George R61ey~ architect fo~~ the petiti~ner~ stated there was not much chanye to the orl3inal plan; that a 200~)-square foot connierc(al space had been added for a servlce statlon; that the configuration of the co~rmercial space is cl~anged~ but It is basically thu same plan, He indicated an extension had b~en grantea for the conditlc>nat use permit by the City Council in February~ and tl~at ctie petitioncr was ready to fi~e for a bulid(ng permit. Commissioner lierbst statr~d lhe service 5[ation is complecely isolated from the rest of the shopping centcr. Mr. Riley state~l that this was exac[ly as ihe p{ans had been ap~~roved on the original canditional use permit; ttiat tliey liad been tald by sr.aff to develop tt~e precise plan exacily as approved. Steven Silverstein, ~ittorney for the petltioner, indicated the only difference on thls plan Is the square footage of the conwnercial space. tle stated tfzat Mary Dinndorf was one of the proponents when the conditiunai use permit was approved in March~ and that tt~is was the exact same conditton~i use permit that the City Councii had t~eld extensive hearings on; ~nd that no chanyes t~acf becn made other than to make it mor~ attractive for the 10/l0/77 .,. } w MINUTES, A~IAfIEIM CITY PLA~INlNG COMMISSION~ Octaber 10, 1977 i7~671 ITEM E (continued) cc~mmunity by not puCtfny the pumps on the street but in tl~e back of the statlon. Ile Indicated they I~ave a prablem because of the commitment macle to the City Gouncil to start constructlon prior tu th~~ expiration ~f tho yc~~r; th.~t another extenslon~ becausc: of the Commisslon's dec(sion to hc~ld a publlc hearing~ woulci delay the p~oject even further; and that it has been go(ncj un since 1~174. Chalrm,~n Tolar polnted out ttiat It was not ti~e Commi~sion who IiacJ deiayed this proJect~ and Mr. Silverstetn rc.plied cl~et it was not tl~e fault of the Comnission but th~t thelr decis lon to hc~ld a publ ic fiearing would delay thc. projcct further end time is oF the essence. ChAirm~3n Tolar statr:cl th~c he had not been on chc Corvnission when this had becn orlginally approveJ and coul~ not votc on this prc~}ect. He stated there have been drastic changes in the canyon are~ since the orlc~in~l conditional use permit had G~en ap~roved, ancJ he feit the publlc should have a louk at the naw pl~ns, Canmissinner Johnson ind(cated that he ac~reed wlth Chairman Tolar~ and s{nce this piece of property is now in the~ scenic corridor ov~:r'ay zone~ Ic should be h~ard at a public hearing. Annika Santalahti Indicated that the scenic corrielor was adopted in 1~171 fcr about 2~000 feet and was expanJed in 1~1J;, anei Ch~~t this ~roprrty had been included in the scenic corridor ov¢rlay area since the beyln~inc~. The awner of t~~c propcrty aske~ It tlier~ wuuld be a 4~ublic hcaring by the City Council rather than at the f'lanning Cor~ission Ic~iel~ anJ It was replicd thc public hear(n~~ would be held ~t thc City Council level. Canmission.r H~rbSt askcd tlic Traffic Lnyincer if they had cxamined the driveways on Lakeview !'~.venue. Jim Kawamura~ Assistant 7raffic Engineer, indicated they had not looked at the dr i v~eways . Dave E~rc~.rn~ 4731 McY.innon p~ive~ inuicated he was a resident around the corner from sub}ect property. H~ staced I~e ha~1 becn livtny at this location only three or four muncl~s when th~; original pru.ject was approved and that t~c was not informed there would be a servici• station at this location; ttiat~ in fac[~ the develoE~er had {nTarmed him that thfs locati~n would probably be cul-de-sac streets with residences. Ile stated he liad more of less polled the residents in the arca~ and t`~ey felt there stzould be a public hea~(ng sa ttiat Chey woul~ have a chance to speak ay~+inst the project or at least see the plans. 11F statud they recormienJed the project be Jiscussed by the HACMAC Committee ayain hefore going to tl~e City Gouncll. Howard Rossnbery ~ one of tl~e ayners of the proper ty ~ i nd i ca ted tt~t ob ject i ve was to develop the ~roperty in conformance with the original plans wi~hout makiny any cieWiatlons. an~d as far as isol~tiny ttie service station frc~ the rest ot the shoppiny center~ they wauld prsfer to incorpora[e it wtth the stiopptng center. Ne indicat~d they had taken an u~ly piece oF property with the pumps faziny on the outside and .•ev~~sed them so that the service faciiities would be facing the inside, and felt it would i~rove the environmrnt visually rathcr than Jeter from it. Chairman lolar stated he felt the petitioner was missiny the intent of the Conmisslo~; that they were not opposed to the project but that there have been ~ lot of changes in the c~nyon ~rea since this was originally designed~ and he feit the intent was guod and agreed 10/ 10/77 MIfJUTE~~ ANAIIEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSIUN~ Octnber 10. 1977 ~~~~~~ ITCN E (continu~d) _______ with It. but (t wes his opinion that the property owners shculd be confrontc.~i with thls situatlvn and ba givcn thc opportunity to ylvc thc City Council Input~ and that It should be schedulod f~~r a publ ie hearin,y. Mr. Rosenberg atat<~d hc appreciateJ what Chair-nAn Tolar ~~+as sayin,y~ but Chat he was trying to camplY wit~i the n-,~n~iate from the An~heim City Councl i to <~et the proJect unclerway within thQ tlme frome as agrecd. He stated that when ~he extension to thc condltlonal use p~rmlt had bcen uranted~ thcy wcre tal~l therc would n~~vcr be anothcr extension granted~anci ihat lhey have been en~feavorinci tc~ get this plan dev~.loped and brouqht to a satlsfaetory concl us i ~~n. Ghalr~aan Tr~lar iii~li~atc:~ I~e would bc morc th~n happy tn d~~ whac~vF~r he could to clet this on the C( t~~ Ca~r~c f 1 ~~;cnd;~ as s~Yr~ •~ti ~^« i h 1 i• ,.md tha t he wou 1 d make that par t of xhe motlon~ that thts be a priority (cc~~~. Comrntssica~iPr 1lerbst indicatr.d tl~~t it was qultc possil~lc that the Lity C~uncil may review thc plans anJ ,fecicfe not to set a public he~~riny. Mr. Rosenbery askcJ lf thc Con~riissi~n would like to sec any mociifications to the plan. Commissionc;r Herbst inJicated that the oriyin~~l plan showed the servlce s[atlon backcd into the shopplny center an~f that th~ new pfan cloes not~ ancl ;hat it would have to be incorporated lntu the shoppiny ccnter. -~e stated that the scenlc corridor ordln~tince spr_~lfically sCates a service station must be incornor~~[ed within the shopping center. Mr. Rc~senbery an~i th~~ archi tect inditateJ that tliey would be hapvy to c:~mP~Y• ACTI0~1: Coinmissic~ncr Linn uffcred a rnotlon, seconded hy Cornmissioncr David and MOTION CARRICU (Commisslone.r E~arnes beinc~ ,~I;yc~~t) , tl~at the An:~hr.Im City Planning Commission recomr~end to tlie C i ty Counc 1 1 kf~at Ch i s f t~:rn bc d i scussed ~t a pub I f c meet i ng and that a new envi ronrx:~ ta 1 assessment bc submi ttecl ~•i i th not i f i cation tc~ nearby res i dents as oriyin~lly in~~de; tha[ the servicc station h~ incorporated into the shoppin~~ center; and that th(s matter be a priority item on the City Council agenda. ITEM F. CONU171UHAL USE PERMIT td0. 1616 - Request for terrnination. The s,taff report to the Plann(ng Commission dated October 1!1~ 1977 was preS~nteJ~ indlc:ating chat [hc subject property is an irregularly-sliapeci ~arcel of land consisting of approximately 11 acres having a9frontaye of ~oximate1Le415dfeeteeastnofhtheQCenterlinefof Santa Ana Canyon Road ~nd bein located app Y I mpe r i a 1 H i ytiway . The applicant ('rlarren Lefebvre of Imperlal Properties) requests termination of Condltional Use Perr~it No. 1616 whtch was approved by the Planning Commission on April 26, 1976 to perrnlt a drive-through restaurant and the constr~~ction of tl,rec cornmercial buildings; and that the request for termir;ation is necessary to fuifill the condit~ons of approval of Conditiona) Usc Permit No. t7J, which was yranteci by Che Planning Conmission on August 1, 1977. ACl'ION: Comm9ssioner King offered a motio~, scconded by Commissio~~er i)avid and MOTION ~re~~rec~mmmenditoetheeCity Councilbthat,ConditiotnalAUs~eePermitYNo1~161G9be~terminated,es he y 10/ 10/~11 MINUTF.S~ ANAHI:I-1 C17Y PLANNING COMHISSIOtl~ Octobcr 10~ 1?77 )7-fi73 I TEM G. CON()I T I Qt~l1l USC PF.RM I T N0. 11~2 J- Rec~ucs [ for aperova 1 of spec ( f( c pl ans . _ _...,., The staff rupart ta the Planninq Cornmission ~oted Octob~sr 10~ 1~7J was presented~ indicotiny th~t subjeci propcrty ls an irre~~ularly-shaped parcel of land cansisting of epproxtmately 7.3 acres, hdvl~~y fror~taycs of approximatcly Gt)l~ feet on the north stde oP iCatella Avenue and ~~0 fect on the west Side of SCa~te College Eioulevard~ heving a maximum dcpth ~f opproximately ~90 fect~ and bein~ locnted at the northeast corner of Katella Avenuc~ and Stacc Collegc doulevard. 7he applicr~nt requests approval of speclftc plot plans, floor plans and elevatlons for a bank buil~ling. J. J. Tashiro~ llssistant Planner, indicAted t~~at tl~e peticl~ner has had a tPmpor~ry t~aller at thc sita and Is now dcveloping a buildin~~ according to ~pecifi~.: plans. ACTION: Cammtssi~ner K(ng offered a motion~ s!:condecl Gy Cormisal~ner DAVi~i an~i Mf1Tl(1N CATU (Comrnissioner [larnes bein~~ absent)~ tha[ the Anehe(m City Planning Commission does hereby approvc submittc:d site pl~ns~ flour plans and clevaticros as satisfying Condit(on N~. 1> of Plannin~~ Commiss(on Resolution No. PC73-2~~0, ITEM II. COI~UITIOfIAI USE PERNIT N0. l~i~il - Rec~uc,t for an extension of time. The staff report to the Planning Ccnxnlssiun Jated Oct~ber 1~~ 1977 was presented~ indicat(ng that tl~c~ ,ubJect property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land eonsisting of approximately 0.16 acre locateJ ae 13[~ u~st Lincoln Avenue. The applicant (Throci~re Frahm) requests a six-month extension of time for a non- denominational church in ur~ier to complete neyotiation with the Redevclopment Agency. It was noted that two previous extensiuns of tirnc have been yrantec; by thc Planniny Comrnission~ onc for six rmnchs extendin~,~ fro~~~ January 17 to July 17~ 1977, and anothsr for three manths extenJinc~ from July 17 tU Octuber 17~ 1)77~ thc lattcr extension bcinq gran~ed on the basis that tt~e appltcant proposed to relocate thc chu~ch as soon as the necessary arranyern~nts could be cornpleted~ whicfi was within two or three months. There was a discussiran r_oncernln9 che Redevelopment Agc~cy's plans for thi, proJect~ and it waa the yeneral consrnsus that ti~is request for exCension af time should not be granted for six months. ACTI011: Comr~ilssioner King otfered a mution~ secondeJ by Cormiissioner David and NOTiON C RR CO (CommiSSloner Elarnes beiny absent)~ tf~at the Anaheim Clty Planning Commission grant a twcr wersk extension of time for Canditional Use Permit No. 1~~41~ to expire October 3~, 1977. ITEN I. RECLASSIFICATIQN N0. 71-7$-12 - Request for approval of revi,ed plans. The staff report to the Plann(~g Commission Jated October 10, 1977 was presented~ indicating tt~at subJece property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consist(ng of approxirnately i.l acres~ having a Frantaye of approxima[ely 9G feet on the west s(de of Weatern Avenuc~ having a maximum depth of approximately 618 feet~ and being located approximately 325 feet north of Che centerline of aall Road, The applicant requests approval of a revised plan far an apartment complex; that Reclassification No. 17-7a-12 was approved by the Planning Commission on September 12, ~917; that the applicant had stipulated to th~ee changes in tl~e proposed developme~t as a condltion of approval uf the reclassification; ;hat the first stipulation was that the ta/1o/77 MINUTCS~ ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNI~~G GOMMISSIOtJ~ Octobor 10, 1917 ~~~b7~ ITEM I (caitinuod) ._._. applicant would reduce the propased apartmcnt complex by one unit on the rear (west) portton ~f the praJect In ordcr ta provid~ morc recrentfonel area~ and the revised plan Indicotes that the proJect ha5 been ~lecreasCd by one u~it from lti unlts to 17 unlts~ whlch incroAS~s tl~e depth~ of the open space at thc rear of the project frcxn 1~ to 2~ feet~ and the rev(sed plen furtl~er incJicat~s ~ 55n-square foot leisure buildtnc~. The second stlpulatlon was that tl~c applic~~nt woul~l construct an a-fout hlgh c~ncretp block wall along those portions of the sautl~ property line adJacent t~ tf~e churcl~~ and thot the revised plon Indicat~~s tlir wall wlll be raiscd to Appr~xirruitely 8 ftet. The thtrd stipulatlc~n was that the appllcont would provlde dense l~indscapinq alon~ the west property 11ne~ anc~ that the revisecl plan has been Clienyed Lo confurm with this stlpulrition. Cumrni~siuner Kin~~ ruferrea to thc ~;^-~qu~re fovt bull~lin~~ lncnric,n ~nd indlceCed he wa5 concerneJ tF~~t Mr. Uonovan~ the ad,jacent property owner~ would not like the lncntf~n ~f this builJiny. Chalrman Tolar indlcated that the buildiny wo~~ld not be any higher than the c~aragc~s. ACTIOtI: Corunl~aione~ Kin~~ offerecl a r~oti~n~ se~onded hy Cornmissioncr Johnsc~n and MOTION Cq~ R~ilf:p (Cornmissic~ner E3arnes beiny absent), that thc Anaheim City Planniny Commisslon hAs determined that thc revisc~J pl~in mects the stipulated conditio~s of a~~raval of Recl.issi ficatior No. 77~7~~'~~• ITCII .J. AI~Ai~UONMLW7 IJO. 77~~+~ 7he staff report ta thc Planning (:or,missio~~ dated Octobcr 10, 1~77 was present~d~ indicatin~~ that tl~e subject rr~que~~t f~~r abandonrnent of a publ ic uti 1 ity easement Is subrnitted for action by tl~c~ Plannin~ Corr,iission in corr~liance wich the provisions of Ssctlnn ~01~3: of tihe Statc uf California Govcrnment Code which reads as follows: "A vac~Cion af an easement sl~all not be ~r~lcred within the area for which a master plan is adopted until tl~e pr~posed vacation is submitted to and ~cted upon by the Planning Commission." I t was noted that tt~e D i recCor of tf~c P I ann i n~~ Department has deterrni ned that the proposed activlty falls within the definition of Section 3•~~, Class 5, of tt~e City of Andheim Guidelincs Lo the Requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore~ cateyorically exempt froni the requirenent to file an EIR. ACTIQN: Comrnissioner King offer•ccl a rr~tlon~ setonded by Commissioner David and MOTION C~D (Commissioncr Barnes being absent)~ that the existing public utility easemertt located nortl~ of Katella Avenue, west of 7_eyn Street~ be abandoned as recommended by the Ci ty E:ngineer in his me~rx~ dateci Septen~ber 12, 1977 to the C(ty Counci 1 and Planning CommlSSiJn. I TEN K. M I I~ IhlUM OFF-STREEI' PARKI NG D I MCNS I ONS - R~.~uest for arnendment. The staff report tu the Planning Commiss(on da*_ad October 10~ 1977 Wes presented. pointing aut that the Traffic Engineer requssts an a•,~endment to City Council Resolution No. 67R-75 (Minimum Off-Str•eet Parking Dimensions). ~n~ that the proposed amendme~it would add a general note ta Exhibit "A". The note would specify which parking bays may dead-end and indlcate the end stall treatment in deacJ-end bays. ACTION: Commissi~~er David offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner i.inn and M0710N ~D (Cc~mmisstone~ 6arnes being absent), that the Anaiieim City Planning Commission does 10/10/77 NItiUTES~ ANAf1EIM GITY PI,ANNI~IG COMMISSIO;~, Octol,cr 10~ 1977 71~67i 17EM Y. (cuntlnued) _~_ recomm~nd ta the City Council that an amendr+xnt to Resolutlon No, h7R-7~ (Minlmum Off- Stroet Porkiny Ulmt:ns(c~~~s) ~c amended os recQnxrx~ndecl by thc 7rAfftc Enqincer. I TEM L. REQUEST FOR E I R NEGAT 1 VL D~CLARAI'I ON FOR A GOIF DR I VI IIG RAtJGC . Thc staff repc~rt to the Plannin~~ Commisslon dated Octohcr 1(1~ 1~177 was presenc~d, stAtin~ tliat the Clty of ~-nal~cim Parks~ Racre~tlon and Arts Departrm~nt proposes to establlsh e golf drlving ran~~e on 1; acres of thc Gtlbert Retardtny Efastn~ southeast of thc intersectl~n of Crescent Avenuc and Gilbert Strcet; that the ~roperty (s in the PR~ Pubtic ReGrPat(on~ Z~ne an~ is adJ~icent tu tt~e Uac1 Mlller Galf Course an the suuth and east; ttiat there is a mobilehomc park ~~cross Gilbert Street [o Lhe west .,nd multipie-family rc,idcnccs aeruss Crc;c~nt 1lvcnuc Lo thc nort.~; that itic prcpcrty is !n the Gilbrrt ReCardlnq Basln which is subject to flooclinq durlnq major storms~ an~f the nstablishment of ~ yolf driv(ny ranye is ap~rc~~~rlate in this 1~~catlon because it woulei not affect the retardin~, h~sin an~1 wc~uld s~!Ff~r r~l.itivrly min~~r ~iam.~r~r. fr~m fl~~clln~; ancl that the 1( yh t i ng of the d r i v i n~~ ran~~e cou 1 el have ~ mi nor impact i~n the nearh,y res t dent ( a 1 proparf.y, howcver~ this cc~uld be mi[igated by a requlrcmc~~t limitln~,~ thc hnurs af usc. ACT I ON : C~inmi ss i oner I:i ny of fereJ ~ rnut 1 on ~ sccorided by Corxni ss ioner Davi d a~d MAT I ON CARR 1 ED (i.ummi ss ioners l(nn ~ncJ Johnson vc~t i ny nu and Corn~i( ss i oner 13arnes bc iny absent) ~ that [he Anaheim C([y Pianniny Conrnissiun app~uves Chc requcst for NeyaLivc Ueclaration for the es[ablishment of a yolf driviny ran~c ~outhe~ist of Lhe intcrsectlon nf Crescent Avsnuc a~J G~lbert Street~ subjett to thc r~~qulrr.rnrnt Lhat tt~e liyhting be turned off no later than 10:00 p,m. ITE11 M. V,4RIANCE N0. Z348 - Request for approval of vehicular circulatlon and Parking plari. Chairman Tolar indicated that he ha~l declared a conflict af inter~st when this var(ance hacS been approved previc~usly anel that he would not taL.e rart in discussion or vating of th i s i tem. CNAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE HERDST ASSUMEU THC CNAIR. The staff report to the Planning Commission Jated October 10~ 1~77 was presented~ noting that the sub.ject properCy is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consist(ng of approxtmacely 4.2 acres located at the nor[t~east corner af' Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial 1ligliway. The applicant (R~obert D. flauc~aard~ architect) requests approval of vehicular circulation and parkiny plans for the subject development which is a part of the commercial center boundeci by the Rivc~side Freeway~ Via Cortez~ Santa Ana Canyon Road, and Imperial Ilighway; that Variance No. 2948, with waivers of requir~d landscaped berm and maximum structura) height. was approved by the Clty Council on Septemhcr 6~ 1~77, requi~iny that a rev(sed ~slan specifying on-site vehicular circulation shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission; anci that the Plannin~,~ Commission had discusseJ the total site circulation, tncluding traffic to and from the existing comriercial center and the vacant property to the north~ irnplied acces. to imperial Nighway and two-way traffiG *.o the north of Grlswold's. Harry Ri~lcer~ owner of the property~ was present to answer any questions and stated that csrtain draftin3 errors f~aJ been made on the previous plan and have now been corrected. ~o/to/77 MINUTES~ ANAtIElM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ October t~~ 1977 77-676 ITEM M (continued) `~_ Ne indicatod he had discuised tha rnvised plan with Peul Singer~ Troffic ~ngineer, nnd that he hss no obJecttons to this pian. ACTfON: Comml~sioner Davld offered a motion~ secondcd by Cortmissloner Llnn and MOTION t ED (Comm(ssioners Barnes and Toler being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Ptanning Comntsslon h~s revlewed the revis~Qd vel~icular circulation and parking pl~n and does hereby approve the plan. CHAIRMAN TOLAR RETURNED TO 7NE CNAIR. Item N~. 12 was dlscusseJ and appruved at this time. ADJOURNHCNT Commissioncr King offered a moti~n~ ser_onded by Commisstanc~ Linn and MOTIAW CARRIEU (Cortmiasioncr Barnes being absent), that t~ic mecting be adJourned. The: meetiny a~.iJourned at 5:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted~ ~:. / ~ ~~ t-4.. , ~ (Ct 1. ~ c,s~ ~~ ~~ Edith L. Ilarris, Sscretary ~nahcim City Planning Commtsston ELN:hm 10/10/77 .~