The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1978/01/30.~ 1 1 ~~Ly HB~~ Anaheim~ Callfornia January 30~ 1978 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAFIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN REGULAR - The rogular meeting of th~ A~aheim City Planning Commtsston wds called to MEETIPIG order by Chatrman Tolar at 1:30 p.m.~ JeRUary 30~ 197~. tn the Counctl Chamber~ a quarum being present. PRESENT • CHAIRMAN; Tola~ COMMISSIONERS: Bernr.s~ Davi~1~ Nerbst~ Johnson. King Commissfoner L(n~ arrlved at 3:00 p.m. ALSO PRESENT - Jack Mlhf te Deputy CI ty Attorney Jay Tttus OPfice Engin~er Peul Singer Traffic Engi~ecr Annika Santalal~ti Asststant D(rector fo~ toni~g Jay Teshiro Asslstant Planner Edith Harris Plannf~g Conmisslon Secretary PLEDGE OF - Yhe Pledge of Alleg(ance to the Flag was led by Commissi~ner Herbst. ALtEGIANCE APPROVAL OF - CommissionGr Ba rnes offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Johnso~ THE MINUTES and MOTION CARRIED (Cammissioner Linn being absent)~ that the minutes of the me~ting of Jenuery 16~ lg7l~ be approved, as submftted. ITEM N0. 1 E~tTdE'~1 TVE DECLIIRATION CONTIlIUED PUBLIC NEARING. 04INERS: ARTNUR N. AND R N. 7-J8-2d RUTI~ M. ET2~ 16245 Elizabeth Lske Road, Palmdale~ CA 93550. AGENT: JOHN W. ZYLSTRA~ 2331 41eat Lincoln Avenue~ ~'13~ Anaheim, CA 92d01. Petitioner request~t reclassificatton of property described a5 a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land conslsti~g of approximately 2.6 acres h~ving a frontaqe of approximately ~;12 feet on the aast side of ~each Qoulevard~ having a maximum depth of approxlmately 279 feet. and being located approximetely k35 feet north of the centerline of Bsil Road fr~m the CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMITED) to the EtM-~200 (RESIDEWTtAL~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. 5ubJect petition wes continued from the meetings of December 5 and 19~ 1y77 and January 16, 1978 for submisslon of revised plans. There were five p~ersons in~icating their presence in opposttion to subject request~ and although the Staff Report to the Planning Coramisslon dated January 30~ 1978 wes not ~ead at the publtc hearing, (t is referred to and made s part of the minutes. Jay Ta~hiro,, Assistsnt Planner, read three letters of oapoaition fram Sid~ey C. Morey~ Apt. E1, Lynrose Manor~ W. L. and Eleanor Webster, an~d J~tmes E. and Lynne 6. Davts. He also read a petition containing 70 sfgnatures~ 40 oi` which had signed a p~titio~ p~eviously submltttd (said letters arod petitian mre on file in tha Planning Department). 78•50 1~'3~/78 ~ __ : _...:.,,.>-.~.~,: ~.... MiNUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLNNNI,~c, COMMISSION~ January 3Q~ 197~ 78-~~ EIR NEGATIVE OCCLARATION AND KECLASSIFICATION N0. 77w7~•28 (continued) John Zylstrr~ sgent~ stated at previous publtc hearings hc wns led to belteve there were no obJnctluns to the rexnnlny, but to thc plan as originally submitted~ and that the plens have been completely redrewn. Ha tndicsted that pr~viously the plans had automobiles backtng out int~ the 60-foot casement~ which is a non-exclusive easement ellowing ingress a~d eyress to about half of Lhe apartments to thc rear of subJe~ct propcrty. He (ndicated tl~e new plans present a rugulnr streetscape alonq this easer~xnt end the~e wfll be no autamobiles beckiny Into the e~sement. Hs point~d out the parking facilittes for each Complex end stated that recreat(onal ancl launclry faciiities will be loceted on both sldes of the ~ason~ei~t. Ne indtcated Adec~uate trasli enciosures will Ge provided as recammended by the SanltaCion Ulvision, I3. A. Smith indicated t~e and his wife~ Frances Snith~ t~ad obJPCted to t.hese ptans all alony and thet they I~ad said tF~ey woulcl cons(der a zone chanye prov(dinq the plant were satlsfectory~ but thol the plans are not satisfactory; thak they were tlred of spendtng monay ancl t(me and want to qo on reco~d opposlny the reclassificAti~n. He asked the Comnisslon if they had copies of the recomnendation frun- the City Enyinaer regarding the street dedication~ and Chairman Tolar inJ(cated the Commission diJ h~ve cop(es of that l~tter. Ne stated tlils prapf:rty owner had bought twa ~~-eces of property and po(nled ouc Porcels 1 and 2 on the exhibit he had displayed. He r~eferred to tlie ~:asement wh(ch crQSSes the property and has beNn in use since 19;5, He seated tf~~ ;quare footages of these parcels after the easement has been subtracted tate! ~i&~263 square feet and h~ did not `eel thts proJect would fit on those lots. Ile indicated he would not allow the petltloner to use Lynrose Orive; that he would have to come (n off B~ach Bouievard~ across the fr~ntage road~ and tnto his parcel, Ne referrPd to a bad traffic situation and Indicated two people had been killed at tt~e intersectfon of Ball Road in the lesi month. He refe~red to chtldren welking to school and pointed to the exhibit indicating the vehicular traffic and the pedestrian traffic for school chfld;en. He (ndicnted he felt this plan was ridlculous and stated he did not feel sufficient parking is proposed. He ind(cated there might be a question concerniny the ownership of this easemtnt; that he had traced this parcel of land back to the Indians and has deeds and old maps prov(ng everythtng he says; that he owns the easement and the petitiuncr is not going to use (t. Danlel Lawson~ 2950 Wast Lynrose~ Anaheim~ indicated he is a tenant of Mr. Smith's apartme~ts; that his main objectlon is to the use nf the easemtnt to the apartments; that there are moving vans~ telephonc wo~kmen~ water delivery, mati~ etc.~ using that private drive. Hn indicated the new plans show a total travelwav 36 feet wide and that with cars perked parallel on that street next to the plenters, did not think there would be sufficlent room. He stated tenants of the new apartr~enY buildings would be coming to Mr. Smtth's driveway and making e U-turn in order to yet aui. He stated he had no object(ons to apartments bu[ did obJect [o c.utting off his entrance and exit~ and r@ferred to the s~fety hazards. Mr. Zy!stra referred to ownership of the easemeni and stated they have a title policy indlcatfng i1r. Etz owns this easement; that this eb3emenf is an non-exclusive easement granted to the Smiths for inyress and egress only; aiid that the taxes are paid by the Etz'. He indicated the proposed st~eet would be the same wtdth as presently exists; it will b~ landscaped and curbs and sidewalks added~ and a sidewalk wfil be lnstal!ed along 8each Baulevard for the children to go to scf~ool. Ne indicated h~ did not feel they wrre going to obstruct the people to tf~e rear at ell; th~t they would be imp~oving the area and this use would be better than commercial and wtll add less traffic than commercial, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Tolar reminded the Commissian that as fa~ as the ease~~ent 's concerned, Lhe Planning Commission is only concerned with reclassification or rezoning of the propev~ty to 1/30l78 .~ MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COhWISS10N~ January 30~ 1978 7a-52 EIR NEGATIVE GECLARATION AMD REClASSIFICATION Np. 7_7-78-28 (conttnued) RM-1200 from commerctat and thet tha owners of th~ propr.rty have to dec(de how the lega) aspects of the essement arc going to be settled end not the Planning Commisslon. N~ indicatad~ in his oplnion~ RM•1200 zantng woulci do a lot more towerd p~ovtdtng safety than conmercta) development; that thore would be less trlps per dey with the zontng as be(nc~ requasted. ~le stated this plen does pr~vidG a ynad RM-1200 pro)ect and eiim(nates any verlances In relstlonship to parktng~ open space~ etc. Commissloner Herbst asked the rnaxln~um curb-ta-curb wtdth if Lynrose Dr(ve were a ded'cat~ad public street~ sncJ Jay Tltus~ Office Engineer~ replied that it would not be changed frvm what It Is now~ but lf they were building a new street they would bc rcquired to put tn 40 feat curb-to-curb travelway~ buc that 36 feet curb-to-curb was xhe standard at the tlme the street was daveloped; chat tfie oiily dlfference would be the propcrty owner rt-~inteins that street at present and~ if dedicated, the City would maintaln it, Commissioner King refcrred to the Sanitacion Uiviston recomnc~dation that adequatr trash enclosures be provided~ and Mr, Zylstrr~ replied that thcy arould stipulate to satlsfy the Sanitation Uiwisiun's conditions. Commissioner Johnson indicated his cuncern since the title policy specifies a f~Q-foot wide ~aseme.nt a~d Mr. Zylstra's plans refer to a 36~foot wicie street. Chairman Tolar indicated the Planniny Comnission could not deal wlth the legalities; L.hat there is no conscruction shc~wn on these plans in thot eas~ment; that the 21~ feet remaining fias nothing but sid~walks and landscaptny prnposed and~ as far as he was conCerned~ he felt the Planning Commission I~ad answered al) they could. Mrs. Smith askeJ to speak~ and Chairrnan Tolar pointed out thc public Fiearfng had been closed. She indicated she ha~i helJ her hand up Nhen he asked if there was anyone else desiring to speak in opposition and he haJ ignored her. Mrs. Smlth stated there were 70 siynatures on the peiition submicted rather than 36 as (ndicate~ by Mr. Tasfiiro and if the Plannirq Commission is 9oing to take the r~sponsibility of allowing this development~ they should at least bc saf~. She indlcated 3he has had dlff~culty gettiny I~er car out of the parking lot and with these new apartments and people parking in the street, it would not be safe. She did nnt ferl it would be safe for the children and that they have olde~ tenants in their aparCments who walk to the corner to tl~e bus~ and she v~as concer:~ea for Lheir safety. She referred to trash cans befng in front of tl~eir entrance and thought the Planning C~nx~iission should dany this reclasslftcation request. ACTIC~r': Commissioner Kiny offered a motio~, seconded by Commission David and MOTICN .~t D(Gommissianer Linn bniny absent}, that the Anaheim City Planning Corrmissfon has reviewed th~ subJect proposal to reclassify the zoning from CL (Corm~ercial, Limlted) to RM-1200 ~Residential~ Multiple-Family) on ~ rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appraximately 2.6 acres having a frontage of approxirnately 412 feet on the east sidt of Beach Boulevard~ having a maximum depth of approximately 279 feet~ and being located epproximetely 435 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road; and does heret,y approve the Negative Declaration from the requlrement to prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that there would be no signil`icant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of thts Negative Decla~ation since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for gen~ral ccxnmercial and medium density resldential land uses commensurate wlth the proposal; that no sensitive environnrenta) impacts are involved tn the proposal; that the Initial Study su6mitted by the petitioner lndicates no siynificant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the Negative 1/30/78 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION, J~~ua~y 30. 1978 78-53 EIR NEGATIVE DECL~RATION_ANO RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-78-28 (continued) ..... ..._.._.~~ .. -- - Declaratlon aubstanttating the foragoing fi~dtngs is on flle in the City of Anaheim Planning Dcpartment. ACTION: Commi~sioner King offered Rasolutlon tlo. PC18-15 and moved for Its passage a~d ac~optTon that the Anaheim Ctty Plarning tonxnisslon dous hereby yrant Petition for Reclsssificatlon No. 77~18-28 on the bazis that any mediflcatlan to the prcclse plans as presented shall be reviewed and approved by tl~e Planninq Commissio~ prior to the issuance of bullding per~its; subJect tA petittoner's atipulation to provide adequate trash encloauras as approved by the San(tation Oivis-on; and subJect to Interdapartmenta) CommitteQ ~ocommendatlons. On roll call. the foreyoing resolution was passed by the follewing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; BARNCS~ DAVID~ HCRBST~ JOIINSON~ KING, 70LAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: LINN Jack White~ Deputy City A~torney~ pointed out that anyone dlssatlsfi~d with the deci~ion of the Flanniny Commisslon cauld appeal to the Clty Councll wlthtn 22 days. ITEM N0. 2 EIR~ CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 CONTIHUED PUBLIC HEARING. ONNER: WMTH~R INNS, ,• INC., 1855 South I~arbor 6aulevard. Anahefm~ CA s2f302. Petftioner requ~sts WAIVER OF (A) PROHI5ITED SIGN~ (ki) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANUING SIGNS. (C) PEitMITTF~ LOCATION OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS~ ANU (D) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANQII~G SIGN5 TO CONSTRUCT TNO FREE-STANDIN~ SIGt~S AND TO RETAIN A PROHISITEO SIGN o~ property descrlbed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting af approximt~tely 10.9 acres located at the northwest corner of Gonventlon way and Narbar Boulevard~ havtng approximate frontages of G00 feet an thes north stde of Convention way and 795 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard~ and further describeci as 1855 Souti~ Narbor ~oulevard. Property presently cl~ssified C-R (COMMERCIAL- RECREATION) ZO~~E. There was no one inJlcating Lh~ir presence in nppositton to subject request. and slthough the staff repo~t to the Plar~~ing Commtssion datad Janua ry 3~. ~97~ was not read a~t the p~li~ hearing, it Is refe~,ed to and made a pa~t of the mtnutes. A~drew Schwebel~ agent for the petitioner, stated the separate study he had made was not valid regarding the signs~ and that they would lfke to withdraw the request for all walvers for directtonal signs and adhere to the Code, but would like to retaln the p~ohibited sig~ (stagecoach). THE PUf3LIC HI:ARING WAS CLOSEO. It was noted Ghat the Dlrector of the Planning Department has determ(ned that the proposed activity falls within the deftnition of Section 3.01~ Class 11, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environmcntal Impact Report and (s. therefore~ categorically exempt from the requtrement to file an EIR. ACTIO~~: Commtsstone~ Nerbst offered Rasolution No. PC7~-16 and moved for (ts passage and a~"~optTon that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition for Variance No. 2985, tn part, on the basis that a similar waivor has been granted i~ the surroundtng area and denial wouid be dental of a privilege enJoyed by other property owners; that 1/30/78 ~' MINUTES~ ANAIiEl~1 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ January 3p~ 1978 7a'54 EIR CATEGORICAI EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 AND VARIANCE N0. 2985 (contlnued) .._._.._._.._..._.,._._..~.,.,.. - walvers (b) and (c) be den(ed ~n the b~ai~ that the pettttone~ stlpulated to p~vvide dt~ectional siy~ing In accordance wtth the 51gn Ordinance and~ therefore~ the ~equested waivers are no lunger necessary; that thn proposed walve~ (d) be grantcd~ In part~ to permit the roof-mounteJ stagecaach to be located eighty (80) feot from the ~xtsting free- standing alyn~ on the basis that a similar waiver hes been grantod in the surrounding area for a simflar vehlcle utilized for advertising~ and subJect to Interdepartmental Committee re comrnnn da t i an s. On roll call~ the forogaln~ re.~~~lutlon was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BAR~~CS~ DAVID~ HERDST~ JOHtJSON~ KING~ TOI.AR NOES : CUMMI SS I ONERS : NOI~E A6SENT: COMMISSIONERS: LINN Commtssionar H~erbst polnted out that the Clty Council had allowed a restaurant to the south to have an automobile of tl~e same nature in ttie parking lot in tha front setback. ITE~M N~O.`3 EIR NEGATiVt DECLARATION PUBLIC HERRING. OWNER: MARINERS SAVINGS b LOAN N N. -7~-43 ASSUCIATION~ Westcliff at Qover. Newport 8each, CA g2663. AGENT; RAYMOND T. TROLL~ 12171 T~ask Avenue~ a2~ Garden Grove. CA ~2643. Pet(tlone,r reQuests thet p~operty described as an irregularly-shaped percel of land cc~sisting of approxtmately 1.8 acres havi~g a fr~ntage of approximatcly ly0 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue~ hbving a maximurn depth of approximately 557 feet~ being located approximataly 1045 feet west uf tl~e centerline of Nagnolia Avenue~ and further descrtbed as 2770 West Lincoln Avenue, be reclas3lfied from the RS-A-43~000 (RESIDENTtAI./AGRICULTURAL) ZONE to th~ RM-1200 (RESIDENTIAL~ MULTIPLE-FAMIIY) ZONE. There was no one Indicatiny their presence i~ oppasitlnn to subJect request~ and although the staff report to the ~lai-ning Commission drted Jen4y~~ 3~, i97$ was not read at the publtc hearing~ it is r~ferred ta and maide a part of the min~~tes. Raymond Troll~ ayent, was present to answer any questions. TNE PUI3LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner King and Chairman Tolar indicated they felt this was a good plan a~d would be Gompatible with uses along Lincoln Avenue. and congratulated the develaper for providing good circulatian and not requesting 8ny variances. Commissione~ Johnson indicated he felt this development would be a big improvement in the area, ACTIOr~: Commissioner .~.ohnson offerad a motlon~ seconded by Cortimtssioner King and MOTION ~~D (Commisstoner Ll~n b~ing absent)~ that the Anahelm City Planning Commission has revi~ewed subJect proposal to reclassify the zoning from RS-A-4;,000 (Restdential/Ayricultural) to RM-1200 (Residentiat~ Multiple-family) on an irreyularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.8 ac~es having a frontage of approximately 150 feet on tha south side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth af approximately 557 feet, and bEiny located appraxienstely 1~045 feet west of the ce~terline of Magnolia Avenue; and does hereay approve the Negative Deciaration from the rsquirement to prepsre an envlronmental impact repo~t on the basis that there wauld be no significant tndividual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approva) of thls Negative Qeclarattan since the Anahelm Ganeral Plan designates the subJect Froperty for medium !/30/78 1 1 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS510N~ Janua ry 3~, 1978 78-55 EIR NEGATI~E DECLARATION ANO RECIASSIFICATION_N0. 77-78-43 (conttnued) denfity residentla) land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no se~sitive dnvl~onmenLa) impacts are tnvolved in the proposal; thst the Inittnl Study submitted by the pet(ttoner tndicates no signlficant Indivfdusl or cumulbtiva advarse enviro~mentel Impact~; an~ that the Negative De~1~rP!.lon substanti~ting the fo~~going flndings is on fite in the City of Anaheim Planning Oepartment. ACTION: Comm(ssioner Jnhnson offered Resolution No. PC78-17 and mdved for its passay~ end a~copt~on that the Anahetm City Planning Commissian does hnreby grant Petit(on for Reclasslf(catlon Ho. 77-78-43 on the basis tl~at any m~difi~ati~~ to the preclse plans as p~esanted wil) be reviewed and approved by the Plenning Canmission prl~r to the lssuance of bulldtng permtts~ and subJect to Interdcpartmcntel Committ~~ recortwnendattons. On roll call~ the f~regoing ~esolutlon was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ~ARNES. DAViD. NERBST~ JONNSO~~, KING~ TOLAR NOES; COMMISSIONEitS; NONE ABSE~~T; COMMiSSIO~IERS: LINN I TEM N0. ~+ EIR 1-~E- GA71VE DECLARATION PUDLIC HEARING. OWNERS: KIMM RICNARD50N AND LYNN ~~ ~u E. TNONSEI~~ 710 North Euclid Street, A220~ Anaheim~ '"-' CA 92~01. Petitioner requests WA~VER OF MINIMUM BUILDING SITE WIDTH TO ESTAHLISN A 7W0-LOT~ RM-1200 SUBDIVISION on p~operty described as an irreyularly-shaped parcel of land conststtnq af appraximately 0.7 acre located at the cul-de-sac term(nus of Lido Place~ h~ving a frontaye of approximately 141 feet on the south side of l.ido Place~ having a maximum depth of approximately 300 feet~ being lACated a~proximately 37~ feet east of the centerline of Lido Lane~ and further descrlbesd as i3e~ Wast Lido Place. Property presently classified RM•1200 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPI.E- FAMILY) ZONE. TherC was no one Indicating t~eir preSence in opposttion to subJect ~equest~ and although the staff rep~rt to the Plenniny Commission dated January 3~~ 197a r~as not read at the publ~c hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. l.ynn Thomsen~ one of thc owners of subject property. was p~esent to answer eny questions and indicated he felt the hardship in this request was partially c~used by the design change, with garages not on the front as previausly submitted. TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chatrman 7olar asked if this request was primariiy to allaw the sale of these parcels as two separate parcPls, and Mr. Thamsen reRlted it was to better servc the property by having two scparate l~ts~ but that they couid be divtded ar~d sold separately. Commissioner Johnson askcd if the accessway wou{d be paved~ and Mr. Thomsen replied that it would. Cammissioner Nerbst asked if access easements would be supptied for both parcels, and Mr. Thomsen replied that they would. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion. seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOT10N ~D (Commisstoner Linn being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Canmission has revtewed the subJect proJect consist[ng of a tv+o-lot~ RM-1Z00 subddvision with waiver of minimum building site width on an irregularly-siiape~l parcel of land consisttng of t/30/78 MINUTE5~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ J~nuury 30~ 1978 EIR NECATIVE DECIAaATION AND VARIANCE N0. 29~7 (continu~d) .._.. .~_._...~..__ 78-56 epproximetoly 0.7 acrc locateo st the cul-de-s~c terminus of l.tdo Pl~ce~ having e fr~ntage of approxlmatnly 141 feet on the south side of Lido Place~ havtng a mmximum depth of approximetely 300 feet~ and being locAted approxtmetoly 370 feet es st of the centerline of Lido Leno; end does hercby appruve tho Nagative Oaclaretion f~aR~ the requlreme~t ta prepare an dnvironmental Impact report on the basis that [here w~outd oe no slgnificant individual or cumulative edverse ehviro~mental (mpect due ta the a~ proval of this Negative Oeclarat(on stnce thr. Hnahelm General Ptan dGSlgnates the subJect p roperty for mcdtum denslty r~sidentlal land uses corr~nsu~ate wlth the p~oposal; that no sensltive environmenkol impacts are involved (n th~ proposal; that the Inftia 1 Study submitted by thr petltioner Indtcates na siynlflcant Individual or cumulative a d vtr3n er (ronrt-ental impacts; and thaC the Negative Declaratlon substantiacing the fur~ ~otng findings Is on flle (n the Ctty of Anahclrn Planning Depertmrnt. ACTIOh: Cwnmissioner Kiny offered Resolution No. PC7a-lb and move d for Its passege and a~~un thet the Anaheim City Pl~nninc~ Commiss(on does hnrnhy grant Pet+t(on For Varlance No. 2g87 on the besls that tl~r depth of subJect property is 2~I4 feet cort~-arQd wi[h a d4pth of 1~0 feet for the adJoining property; that because of the propas e d cul-de-sac front~ there is in~,uffictent frontaye f~r Indivldu~l parcels; that due to the slze and shape of the propcrty~ Parcal B has a 10-foot wtd~ flag pc~rtfon axtcnding approxtmately 14~~ feet from Lido Place to the southerly hal~ of subject property wh~ch Is a~.omnun accesxwsy~ and the petttioner stipulated to supply common ingress and egress agreements for both Parcels A and B es shown on Exhib(t No. 1; and subJect to Interdepartmental Canmittee recommendatio~s. On rol; call~ the foreguiny resolutirn was passed by the followiny vote; AYES: COMMISSIUNERS: BARNES~ DAVID~ ~IERBST~ JONhSON~ KIFlG, TOLAR NOES: CONMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; LIkN Chalrman 'iolar indicated he had supported this resolutia~ but wan t ed tu remind Mr. 'homsGn that he felt~ in this case~ the har~iship had be.n butlt fnto the p/an and hc did not necesserlly agree with the hardship as stated by .he p~titloncr. ITEM N0. 5 E~~~ZORICAL EXEMPTtON-CLASS y PUBLIC HEARtNG. OWNERS: SCOTT W. AND OONNA RAr1EY, VARtA~l.;E N0. 2y 9 ZS32 Wesiport Drive~ Aneheim~ CA S2806. Petl:toner requests WAIVER OF MfNIMUM FR~NT YARO SETqACK TO CONSTRUCT A THREE-CAR GAttAG E on property descrlbed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of ap~roximately 7250 square reet located at the soutl~east corner of West~ort Orive and Jam+bolaya S t reet~ having approximate frontages of 72 feet on the snuth side of 4lestport Drive and 101 fEet on thc ~east xtde uf Jarnbolaya St~eet~ ~nd furthcr deSCribed as 2532 Westport Drive. P ~operty presently classified RS-7200 (RESIDENTtAI.~ SING~E-FAMILY) ZONE. 7here was no one indlcating their prasence in oppositton to subject request~ and although the staff raport to th~ Planning Com~Ission datad January 30. 19~8 was not read ~t the p~blic hearing, it is referred t^ ar•d maJe a part of *.he minutes. Scott Ramey~ the petltioner~ r~as present to answer any questions and polnted out that SOZ of che homes in the neighborhood have this situatior.. He indicat ed they were appa~ently construtied when this property was in thc County and thet hc was ~equt.~ttng the same rlghts the rest of the neighborhood has. 1130/78 n i MINUTf.S~ ANAHEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMIS510N~ .l~nuery ;0~ 1918 78-57 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION•CLASS ~ ANO VARtANCE N0. 298~ (continued) ~._._~..~._.~...~......_ ..._."._ .. THE PU6LIC NEAitING WAS CLOSED. Commission~er Johnson referred tu the height of the gara~a end aaked tf t- vrould acc.ommodete e mc~torhome. and Mr. R~mey repl ted it would be 13 faet high and thae high door would be towards the corner. He stated he haJ meosured hts nelghbor's setbeck and thet those wl th tront-on geragea ~ or abaut 50$ of the houses (n thc ~elqht,onc~~od~ are the same wsy. It was not~d th~t the Director of thn Plan~ ing Departn-ent hes determinpd that the proposed acttvity falls within the deflnitlon of Sectlon 3.01~ Class 5~ of the Ctty of Ansheim ~uidelines to the Requiremcnts for an Environment+~l Impect Raport and Is~ the~efore~ categortcally exempt from tl~e reQuirenbnt to file an EIR. ACTION: Commissions~ Uavld offercd Resolution No, PC7~3-19 and moved for its passaga and a~aop~on tliet the linahcim C(ty Plannin~~ Comm(ssion does hereby gr~nt Petiti~n for Va~tance No. 293q on t;~e besis that dental would be denying this property owner a priv(lege enJoyed oy other proporty owre~•s In the a~~a; ancJ ~ubJect to Interdaparrmental Committee racanmendatlons. On rot l ca) l~ the foreyoing rr_solutlon was passed hy Li~~: fol lawtng vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CARNES, DAVID~ HEREiST~ JOIINS~it~~ KING, 70LAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NQI~~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; LINN IT~M N0. 6 '~Z`~~RICAL EXEMPTION-CLA55 1 PU9 L IC HEARING. UWNER; ELEVEN FIFTY TUSTiN, CONDIT ON L~SE '~ERMi~ T NO.~ 7~ 16372 Constructton Circle E~ Irvine, CA 92?14. AGEN T; J. P. KAPP ~ ASSO~IATES~ INC.~ 501 Fark Centcr Drive~ Santa .,na, CA 92705. Petitione~ requests ON-SALE OF ALCOIiOLIC BEVERAGES IN A PROPOSEU RA~(jUETBALL Fti"Ii.tT7 on property desc~tbed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel ef land consistiing of approximately 0.9 acre having a frantage of approximately 163 fee t on the east side of Tustin Avenue~ having a maximum depth of approximately 269 feet. be ing luc.ated approximatc{y 6G5 feet narth of the centerline of Le Pelma Avenue~ and fur[ her cte,scribed as 1150 North Tustin Avenue. Property presently classified ML (INDUSTRfA 1~ LIMITED) ZONE. There was no one indlcating ti~etr presence in opposition to subject ~equest, and althou4h the ,taff report to the Pianning Commissio~+ dated Janua ry~0~ 1978 was ~ot read at the public hea~ing~ it is refer~ed to ard made a part of ~he minutes. Eileen Jahnston~ agont~ r~ferred to the pa r king spaces as mentlnned in the staff repo~t end lndicated thert are 46 ratf~er than 40 spaces. Commissioner Joh-~son statpd he had counted 40 and asked ir she was counting those sp~ces by t--~ big doors and asked if they would be using those biy daors~ and Ms. J~hnston replied she had counted those spaces as those dvors would ~~ot be used. TtiE PUBI.IC HEARING WAS ~LOSED. Cortmisstoner Johnson indtcated he w~s conc~rned about the parki~g and referred to the Traffic Engineer's recommendarion for mot'e parking spaces than shawn. t/3o/78 ~ MINUT£S~ ANAMEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ J~n: ~ry 30, 1978 7a•58 EI~R_C ATEGORI CAL EXEMPT 1 ON-CLASS 1 AND COHD IT IONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1797 (cont i nuad) Commi ssloner Hsrbst Ind icated he wes concerned about the use being compatlble wlth the industrlal a~oa, Ms. Johnston et~tAd that recquetbal l faci l i ties arc most successful wlun •' ~y are in an (ndustrlal s~ea end tha t thnir heaviest uses would be ~n weekends flnd e~ ngs when the industrlal facilities a~e not In opcration. Coirxnissloncr Oernes esked why the petittoner had chaaen an industrlal area rather than •nott+er area where a cond i c lonai us~ permi t wou! d not be r~qu i red ~ ana Ms , Johnston rep 1 i eJ I t was bocause the bul I~i I ng was ava I 1 eb l e. Paul Singer. Traffic Enginee°~ stated his concerns wlth the parking were besod on a natlonal trafffc study do~e In connectton w~th all type~ of recreatlonal facil fties and thAt the tu~nover for parkl~~ for a recreattonal facl 1 t ty during operat(ng hours is .824 per trlp~ which is a~ very high turnover for th~ use uf ttie parking spacQ~; ++nd that based on the square footage of the building~ b~tween 60 and 8(1 spaces would be requirrd. Cc~nm is~lo~er Johnson i ndl cated~ wl th t~n courts and four players~ 40 players could be on the courts at a glven timc~ and ihat only l~0 pArking spac~s werc befne~ prov(ded whlch woui d not provide any spaces for the turnover, -le inJicated he did not thlnk two or !h~ae people would be arrivi ny ln onc vehlclc. Ms. Johnstor+ ~tated that at the noon hour they predicted several employees would ~rrive ~t one tlme~ and Commissianer Johnson stated he agreed th~c probably was true at noontlme~ but not dur i ng weekends or cveni nys ~ Ms. Johnston stated i t would not bc vcry often during t~c day when most courts would havc fou~ players, and Commissloner Johnson statcJ he was no exp~ert t~ut he Just felt a lot of parklny is ~aquired for thls type i~stallatiori, and che people would be parking on the s t reet. C~issioner Herbst stated he d'+d not fe~l there was enouyh parking but. ~n addition~ he did not fee 1 this use xhould be tn this partlcular industrtai area; that this Is a new industrial ~ulldlnq ire I.he mlddle of an industr(al complex~ and just because the buildiny is aval lab 1 e is no reason to put tn a racquetbai 1 court. It v+~s noted that the Di~ector of the Planning Departme~t has determined that the proposed activlty falls within the definition of Sectio~ 3.~1~ Class 1~ of the City of Mahelm Guidellnes to the Requirerr~nts for an Envtronn,ental Impact Report and is, thersfore~ categorically exempt from the r~quirement to file an EiR. ALT 10N: Commissioner Nerbst offered Resolutlon No. PC78-20 and moved for Its passage and a t o~ that the Anahei m C1 ty P1 ann t ng Commi ss i on does he~eby deny Pet i t ion for Co~ditlonal Use Permi t No. 1)91 on the basis that the proposed coirKnercial use is not ~~npatibl~ wlth and does not service the needs of the indu~triat ar.:a and would be an Entrusion o~ the integrlty of the industrfal are~ and that sufficient parking spaces for th i s type use are not provided. Chairman Tolar indtc.~ted he was supporting this resolution primarlly for thr. reasons c~lven by Comn{ss ioner Nerbs t; tl~a; he felt the Planning Commisston is trying to keep the Industrtal use out of the commercial areas an~i the commercfal uses out of the indust~ta) ar~as~ that certain tyF+es of things are can~atibie. but he did not want to sea anthing sl lowed that would break down the intagrity of the industrial area. 1/30/78 .~ . ^~ MI NUT~S ~ ANAIIE IM C I TY PLIINNI NG COMMI SS I ON, January 30, 1978 78-59 EIR ~ATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONDIT;~NAL USE PERMIT No. 179J (GOntOnued) ~.., .~~ S tephen Ferris asked f~om the audience If ha could spet~k~ end Chelrm~n Tolar Indicated tha p ublic haaring had been closed. Mr~ Ferris stated he was ~oc famtltar with the routlne and did not know It was going t~ be closed. Ne ststad he works in an industrin) area s~d felt something ilke this would be very cc~mpattble; thet it would offer an opportunity for those people within an industrial erea to partlclpate in a spa~t that is haalthy. He felt a lot of penple w~uld particlpAte and it would help the business in the erca. C ommtsstoncr 8ernas indiceted she was going to vote (n favor of dental, although she felt a racquotball court in ~n Endustrtal area wnuld be used, but that the probiem for her Is t here ts a lot of land availabla for a develop,~ent llke thls, end the inclustrtal area has a Itmited amount of land and Is one of khe nlcest in Oranqe County and we would 1(ke to a ttract more industry to i;~ and she d(d not feel that allowing this canmercla) u~e in this Industrial area would b~3 good land planning. C hairmAn Tolar irdicated whila It uiey be true t.hat une commercinl venture m~~ht be compatible~ he was con cerned that the Plenning Commission woulci be settir~y a precedent. N e indlcated that while It may seem the Planning Co~itssian is acttng fast on thls reque~t~ Chcy have considered thls same type thing before and a~e relytng on thelr past e xperiences with this typs request. 0 n roll call~ che fore going resolution was passed by the follc~wing vote; AYES: COM1115SIONERS: kiARNES, DAVID~ HERBST, kING~ JOHNSON~ TOLAR N OES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE A6SENT: CONH15510NER5: LINN J ack White~ Oeputy City Attorney, presented the petitioner with the written right to appea l the P l ann ( ng Comni ss i on dec i s i on wi th i i~ '22 days . 1€T~EM NO.~ ICAL EXEMPTION-CLA55ES 1 b 3 PUSLiC HEARING. OWNERS; ~11LBUR .1. AND COND IONAL US ERMI N0. 79 VIRGIIIIA D. NANK~ PAU~. tl. REYNOLDS, ANU JOHN C. SUTNERLAND~ JR.~ 130~ Avocado Avenue~ Suit+~ 220~ N wport ~each~ CA y26h0. AGEN7; KENNEYN O LSE.., 10416 Midway~ Bellflawer~ CA 90706. Pttttioner requests pe~mission to ESTABLiSH A BUILOING MATfR1AL STOFtAGE YARD on property described as an lrregularly-shaped prircel of land cansis ting of approximately 1.1 acres having a frontage of bpproximataly 20 feet on ~he north sid~ of Carritos Avenue~ having a maximum depth of approxtmately 653 feet~ and b eing located approximately 1100 feet aast of the centerline of Anaheim Boulevard. Property presently ctasstfied ~IL (INDUSTRIIIL~ IIMITED) ZONE. There Nas no o~e indicating thetr prese~ce in opposition to subJect request~ and although the staff report to the Plan~~ing Commtssian dated January 3d, i978 was not read at the public hearing, it is refcrred to and +n~du a p~rt of the minutes. Kenneth Qisen~ agant~ referred to the staff repo~t and asked wny there was a condltion ~equiring the property be paved slnce it will be used for storage. He stated he had built threc storage yerds in the last ten years and preser.ted pictures af these yerds and stated they had been hard-surfacec', ailed and ~raveled. Ne indicated one of the reasons he prefe~s this type af surfsee is the material used in roofing does not adhe~e to the dirt but does adf~e~e to pavement a~d is hard tc remove. Ha stated the tar kettles are pre- loeded at the ya~d and taken to the site befor~: being fired; a~d that clean-up of th~ kettles is easier without pavemGnt. i/30/78 ~ NINUTE~~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ January 30~ 1978 78-60 EIR CAT@GORICAL EXEI~TION•CLASSES 1 6 3 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1798 (w nttnued) ~_......~.~._._ ... 7HE PUBLIC HE~RING WA5 CLOSEQ. Chal~ma~ Tolar asked Mr. alse~ to fu~ther expleln the type af matertals u~ed for treating the soll. Mr. Olsen replied it was a hard su~face of decomposed granite and oiled and tinished with thn same cype of yravel used on rock roots a~d Is gradad perlodically. He refe~~ed to the st~cks of ahtngles as shown In tha ptctures and tndlGated they were no longer stacked that htgh; thit they rwuld oniy be stacked 4 fAet tell and would be below the fence level, Annike S~ntalahti~ Assistant Director For Zoning~ sCated normally the Code specifles the sarth must ba properly tr~skeJ a~u kept up~ but that in mary casas it is not malntainad and staff felt (t should be paved~ but that the Commisslon may settle f~r less than full pavtng. Commisstoner King asked Mr. Olsen if he had any complaints in thc past on his other yards~ an~ he replied that he had ne.ver ;ecelved any complaints. It wes noted that the Director of che Planniny Depart~ent tias determi~ed the proposed ectivity falls wlthln the definition of Sect(on 3.01. Classes 1 and 3~ af the City of Anaheim Guideiines to the Requtrertrents for an Enviror,mental Impact Repart and ts~ therefure~ categorically exernpt from the requirement to ftle an EIR. ACT~~N: Cortmissloner King offcred Resolutlon No. PL7~-21 and maved for tts passage and ao~NtTon that the Anaheim City Planniny Commtssion doe~ her~:by grant Petttion fo~ Condit(onal Use Pcrmit No. 179~, subJect ta ths petitloner's stipulation that the matertals wl l l be. stackec' no higher tF •n cr~e 6-fcwt hiyh~ chainltnk fence with redwood slats a~nc: that the earth or surface of the storage area wl I 1 be properly treated wi th decomposed granit~, oiled~ and itnished w(th a yravel surface and wilt be propcrly malntained at all times~ and subject to Interdepartmenta) Committee recortmendations. On rc~l) coll~ the foreyoing resolution was passed by the following vate: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ DAVID~ NERBST~ JOHNSON, KING, TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NOf~E ~.9SENT: COMMISSIONERS: LINN ITEM N0. 8 EIR~AT ORICAL EXEF~PTiON-CLASS 1 PUBIIC NEARING. 011NER: ROVI PACIFIC REALTY CORP.~ COND TIONAI SE ERMIT N0. 799 I~G) Century Park East, ~-1111, Los Angeles. CA 90~67. AGENT: GEORGE M. ~LSEN~ 2659 IGennedy~ Orange. GA 92665. Petitloner equests ON-SALE BEER AND WIIiE IN A PROPOSED SEMI-ENCLOSED RESTAURANT 411TH WAIYER OF MINIMUM NUNBER OF PARKlNG SPACES on prot~erty described as a ~ectangularly-shaped parcei of land consisting of approximetely J acres located at the no~theastarly corne~ of Serrano Avenua and Nohl Ranch Road~ having approximate frontagcs nf 4F5 feet on the north side of Serrano Avenue and 250 fe~t on the east side or Nohl Ranch Road~ and further described as 6501 East Serrano Avenue. Property presently classified ~L-HS(SC) (COMMERCIAL, LIMITED-NI~.LSIDE SCENIC CORRIDOR OVfRLAY) ZuUE. There were four pQOple indicating Cheir presence in opposltlon to subJect request, and although the st~ff report to the Planning Comm(ssion dated January 30, 1973 wr~s not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the c.~inutes. t/30/78 ~m ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS~nN~ Janu~ry ;0~ 1978 78-61 EIR CATEGORICAI EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AyU CONOITIOyAI ~SE PERMIT N0. 1799 (continued) It was noted the Hill and Cenyon fNunicipai Advis~ry Commtttee (NACMAC) revicwed the ebove p~npossl on January 17~ 1978~ and th~t on a roll Call vate with ntne members p~esent~ two menberg wero tn fevor of the praposal; tao members were !h favor if approved by the school distritt; one member was In favor if appro~ed by the Alcoh~llc Beverage Control Bus~d; one member was In favor of the "on-sale" proposal bur. opposed to o~tdc~or seles; one member was "lukcwarm" on the proposal due to the r~sidnnticl p~operty to the north~ notse potenttal t~nd potentlal fo~ auto drivers (n the ~chool vlcinity after drinktng; end two members ware opposed, primarlly based on neyative input recelved from the school prlnci;~al. Gec; ue Olsen~ egent~ was present to answer any questlons. THt PUBLIC HEARING MIAS CLQSEU. Commis•;toner 1lerbst askad about the outdaor tdbles~ and Mr. Olsen replled there wes a smal) ~rea Just outside the building and, weather permitting, they would ltke to serve food outsld~ (n that comrt~n area. Commisstona~ Herbst indtcatud I~e had looked at the slte and that the frant building has en applicatton for a beer and wtne license~ and asked what was going to be In that butldtng. M~. O1sQn r~ptied it would be a liquor store. Commissloner Herbst asked if ttie neighbar would hav~ any obJectton to Mr. Qisen encroaChing lnto hts erea. Charles Slager and Ray 5(lverman stated that their operation ts sn ~n-sale liquor store and they will have wine-tastin~ classeS~ etc.. but is nor a bee!r bar; and that they supp~ort what Mr. Olsen wants to d~. Commissloner Herbst stated there appears to be an abundance nf parktng ~t the prrsent timc~ but that the Commissfon has no knowledge of what is gotng to be in the oth~er stores when the center is completed and wondered if the awner was awa~e of Cade restrtctions. Mr. Olsen painted out there are seven buildings and they are going to be for p~oFesstonal uses only. Commlssioner Herbs~ stated that sometimes prof±ssionai uses require more E~arktng than conrncrcia) uses. Merwyn L. Johnson~ 6~24 East Carnegle Avenua~ Anaheim~ indicated this property is 50 to 7A feet away from his back yard. He indicated ha has no obJecti4n to the restaurant, but cauld see how outdoor fo~~d service cauld easity upseL the peaceful livi~g of the netghborhood. He was conce~ned ~bout the perking and felt sure ther wtll not be enough parking spaces for the busi~esses in this locati~n. He indlcated that som~e other neighbers were against this petitfon but could not be he~e because th~y had to work~ and he wouid like to go on record as being opposed to this petltton a~d pointed out these hanes are valued at $150~000+ and he did not feel this would be a betterment tn the neighborhood. Fred Austln, 6548 East Carnegie~ indicated he was concerned and wondered if there were any rules and regulations regarding the sale of alcohollc beverages this ctose to a school~ and potnted ou~ the n av grammar school in this neighborhood. Jack White, Deputy Citw Attorney~ repiied that the City does not have any requirements~ hvwever~ was not su~e whethe~ the Aicoholic Beverage Concrol Board has requirements~ and that the City could not impose any requirements af this nature on a conditEonal use permit ~/3o/7a ~~ . M I NUTES ~ ANAIiE 1 M C 1 TY PI.ANN I NG COMM ( SS I ON ~ Jenuary 3A ~ 1978 78-62 EIR CATEGORICAI tXEMPTIO_N-C,I,ASS 1 AND CONnIT10NA; USE PERMI'f N0. 17~9 (continued) becausc Chey do not have Any zoning requirement;~ in that regard. Mr. Austin stated ho feit the City should regulate the sale of alcohnlic bevera<~es thi-, close to en alementary school. Annike Santalal~c(~ Assistant Director for t~ning~ stated the !,lcoholic Beverage Control Board (ADC) application Is forwarded to the school .!istrtct and they can respond directly to the ABC~ and that a copy of the pubitc hearing n~tf~~ was forwarded to th~ school distr(ct and no rnially~ wh~n th~y have obJecttans, they contact the Plan~tng Department. She Indicated it was f~er unde!rstendiny thAt this pariiculer site was outside the distance they aro normally concernecl about. Chatrman Tolar pointed out t'~~~ Planniny Gommiss~on deals str(ctly in land use and (f the pctitione~ get~ the approv~•~ of the ABG~ th~n the Pianning Commission determines if they want ,.o allow beer and wlne at thet locattun; that evcn if the Cammisslon ~llows it And the A4C says It is too clnse to a sc;~ool~ then they would not be allowed ~ do it, Mr. Austin stated he wa~ completely u~awr~re there would be alcoholic beverages ~erved outside and questio~ed ~this pert of the restaurant. Nc referred to an tnstance with a person fintshing part of a dr(nk and icaving~ and he did ~ot t'eel it should be allowed Chis clo!e to a schoal. Ile also pointed out these homes were valued at S150~000+ ann did not feel a re3taur~.m~ with outdoor service of alcoholtc beverages should t~e ailowed tn this neighborhoad, and he was opposed to it. Stephen Ferris~ 6~7~- E. Carnegie, Anaheim~ staCed he was opposed to the o~~tdoor sele of alcoholtc beverages for the same reASOns as mentioned previously. Charles Mu,Ser~ 6$40 E. Cr~rnegie~ Anaheim~ stated he was opposed to the r~staurant anc* sale of wlne and felt it aould lower the praperty values~ and that there was not enough parkiny for the clie:ntel~ and the ottier people wha will rent space. Ile felt it would create too much noisF and traffic and be a safecy hazard. Mr. Olsen indicated his business wtil be a delicatessen and not a restau~ant; that the delicatessen wi~l servc fresh meat~ poultry~ bakery go~ds~ and food that is prapared o~ unprepared; that the seating for the food service is only part of the business. He poi~ted out this wauld be the only food service facility tn the c~nter and that the outside area would be used only wh~n the weather would permit and it would be a professinnally-run operation. He indicated he did not feel the elementary school chlldren would be going into the area whe~e the b~er and wine would be served; that thr outs~dE ar~a would be fenced and eny person entering would have to go through the gste. Ne tndicat~d tliere would be planter boxes and flowers around the fence and that chlldren would not be interested in that area; that his food service would be avallable for the shappe~s and the outside serving area would be closed at dusk; thaC he wished ta attract the F~eople who were shopring in the area and was surprised anyone would consider this a nolsy arrangement~ and he dld not feel there wc~uld be ar~y n~ise created. He stated hls establi~hment will be well-run and professionai in appearancc~ and he did not see how it could lowr~r the p;aperty values. YHE PUl3Ll C HEAR I NG 4fA5 CLOSED. Conanissioner Herbst asked staff if the park'ng requirements I~ad been figu~ed on the squa~e fcrotege of the building~ plus the p;,tio area~ or Just on the butlding. Jay Tash(ro stated it had been calc;ulated on the tndoc~r fa~ilities. Commiss(oner Herbst pointed out that this tvould be addtng a certain amount of area and that parking should be figured on that. He stated it is a new compiex and it Is not known 1/3~/78 ~ f l MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING CGMMISSION~ Janu~~y 30~ 1978 78-63 '!R CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION~CLASS 1 ANO CONDITIONAL USE P~RMiT N0. 179~ (continued) whet Is going tnto the other stores; th~t edding square focrac~ to the patio area would cAUSe perking problems end he Nas wnc~rned about adding usable space end not cluding It in the pa~king r~qulrements. He po(nted out thia c~mplex hed be~n constructed und~r the old roqulrements and the 20-foot lend~capcd buffe~ had nat bee~ rc;quir~~ betwean the homes and tha complex. He tndicated he had no arqument as fAr as the delicatessen was concerned but was concernad about the parking speces and tho fact that there Is no buffer between thc residential homes end thC complex. A c~entleman from the eudtence steted h~ did not fsel there would be enough space for garbage containers~ and Mr. Olsen stat@d there are Mo lerge areas in the back completely enclosed for garbage contalner^~ and that there will be garbage plck-up every two d~ys. In add(tlon~ he ha~ F~ lirqg garbage dlspoaal in his ereo. Chairman 7olar asked if th~ beer and winc and the outdoor restaurant were not pirmitted~ would thet slup Mr. plsen fran opcninc his del(catessen~ an~1 Mr~ Olsen replied tt would be a hardship because when the weather is good it woul~ be pleasant to liave a sandwich and beer or wlne outside. Chairmen Tolar indicat~d he u~~derskoo~ the fears of the people in the ncighborhood and agreed with thesm In part. He Indicated he had seen a lot of outdoor-type resteurants/ cafes such as belny discussed and felt if properly done would enhancn the area snd stated he would like to think this was one of those s(tuations and not Just a beer bar~ but a true European-style cafe/restaurant effect properly donP with flowers~ etc.~ that he would enJoy that type of thing. Na indicated concern that if this use is allowed and Mr. Olsen dectdes to sel) the business~ then the use stays wfth the property and may not be as well run. COMMISSIONER LINN ARRIVEO AT 3:00 P.M. A ge~tleman from the aud~:-::~e ii~dlcatecl he ci',d ~ot think this autdo~r area whtch was anly 8 ur lU feet wtde was lerge ~~.~uyh to accommodate six or eighC tables, Commissioner Herbst asked Mr. 01sen whet typc of fencing hc proposed for this outdaor area, ancJ Mr. alsen replied tt w~uld be: a wrought irorr fence and redwood planter boxes with ftowers oP the seas~+n. Chairman To~ar asked how many tables he pl~nned to put on the outside~ and M~, Olsen replled he would put s(x tables o~~tsideo seating 24 peop~e. Chairman Tolar indicated he felt this td..ility would primarily servize the peaple wo~king or shoppiny :t this complex and the resldents of this nelghborhood. Comm(ssione~ Nerbst rc_ferred to the Grape Press at the Alpha 4fet~ market and ~unstructie•~ workers buying heer and wine and drinking it off the pr~mises. A gentleman frpm Che audience referred to being told~ at the time he purchased his prop*.rty, by a repr~sentative of 5 b S Constructiun Company that,a liquor store would not be allowed. N~e indtcated he was concerned, llving right behind the proposed facility and ~eving a swimmi~g pool~ with construction workers buying bee~ and wine and tossing the bottles aver the f~snce. Ca+missl~ner Johnson indicated he ~houyht the problem here was devClopment of the complex wltt, rye old standards and that tf a 30-foot buffer I~ad been p~ovl~ed, thesc residents would not be concerned. He indicated he did not f~eel this p~oposal Nnuld fit tnto th(s project~ that !* is wrong fo~ this location. ~,'30/7$ ~. ~_ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Jenuary 30, 1978 78-64 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 ANO CONDITIONAI USE PEaMIT N~. 1799 (continued) M~. Olsan stated he did not fr.el thn construction workera would be comtng into this faciltty~ inasmuch as tl~e food. beer snd wlne would b~ served by a waitre~s; that the area would be p~liced and Is not accessible ta the const~~ction workers, price-wiso~ etc. Thc lielght oF the fence was discussed. wlth Mr. Olse~ putnttng out he was not sure oF the helght at thts time. Mr. Olsen indiceted he wants tv be e good neighbor; that he has Just bought A hause about on~ half mlle from this locatlan; ~nd thbt this wauld be a first~ class deltcatessen a~' ~ould be an asset to the nelghborhoaci. Coa~nissiancr Herbsr su99ested tha~t the conditional use permlt be allowed on a trial basts witti a llm{tcd ti~ •~, to hc revic~wed by the Planning Comm(sslon. Cl~alrman Tolar asked Mr. Olsen IF he had lsesed the prapc~ty and he repiteJ that he had. Commissioner .lcrbst sta;ed that if :~ ~rn~r..rly-run opcretion ~s ~o(nc~ Into thls locat(on with the beautiful flowers and will be controlled in th~ manner as stated~ he felt it would be compatiL~C ~•+ith the area. Ile felt if it was tied to a ttme ltmit for re~~~r.w~ the area could support a properly run deltcatessen. Commtssioner 8arnes tndicated she felt this would be acceptable and would allow the Comnfssio~ to know if there were any problems with bottles and trash betng thrown over the fQnces. etc. A gentleman from the auotence in~ic3ted he was not adverse to a time lim(t. He stated that assuming the Pianning Commission approves this on ~ trial basis and there are no problems and Mr. Olsen sells the buslness~ then what ~~appens? Chatrman Tolar pointed out the Planning Cominission can always review thp conditional use permit and it can be terminated w(th sufficient cause; that it ts tled to the use of the property and can be reviewed at any tink. It was pointed out that a new ap~licati~n for a beer and wine license would be postsd and that the outdoor restau~ant would be closed at dusk. Jack White~ Deputy City Atto~ney. pointed out the Flanning Commission could impose a one- year tlme limtt and, if at the end of six months the property were sold or the lcqse expired. the conditional use permit wuuld continue for tha balance of the year 4ut that it would come up for review at the end of the year. Chairman Tolar pointed out the petit~orsr would have to canform with all standards imposed by the Planning Commission and the propert~ va-ners would not be notified of the review. He indicated any complaints should be f(1ed with the Planninc~ Departmtnt so that the Planning Commissior will have them on record. The C~mmissfon discussed the requested waiver for minlmum number of parkt~•g spaces~ with Mr. Tashira potnting out that with the addltional pati~ area they wuuld need three additional spaces. Miss Santalahti pointed out that the propert~, owner had baen nottfied of thP requested waiver and had to authorize this petition being ftled. It was noted the Oi~ector of tlte Planning Department has determined that the prvposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.U1~ Class 1~ of the City of ~M eheim Guidelln~:s to the Reguirements for an Environmental Impact Repo~t and is, therefore~ categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. t/3a/78 ~ ~ ~, I MINUTES~ ANANtIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ J~nuary 30, 1978 ~g_65 e~CATE60RI~AL EXEMPTiON•CLASS 1 AND CON~ITIONAL USE ERMIT N0~1 9(conttnued) ACTION: C~mmtssioner Herbst oEfered Resolutio~ Na. PC78-22 and moved for (ts passage and a~c~ToptTon that tha l+naneim City Plsn~tng Commission does hcreby arant Petltian for Conditlona) Use Permtt No. 1799~ in part~ for the proposed use consisting of e semt- enclosed delicstessen/restaurant with on-sale beer and wine; and ttie proposed outdoor ser~~ice of faod with beer and wtne ts hereby granted subject to a review and approve) af the continuatton of the outdoor function by the Planntng Commission In one year, sub)ect to the pecitlone~'s stlpulst(ons that the outdoor servlca erea will be complet~ly enclosed with a minimum four (4) foot hiyh~ wrought iron fence ano the outdoor service of food wtth beer and wine wil) be Ilm(t~d to daylight hours only; that the requestnd watv~r of the mintmum nuu~ber of parktng spaces (s hereby denied an tha basis that granting ~~f said watver would be detrimental to thc other tcnants in t~~e commerctal cznter; and subJect to Inter.iepartmental Committee reccx~~mendatlons. On roll cail, the foregaing resolution was passe~i by the foll!nvln~ vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; gARNFS~ DAVIO~ iIERpST~ KINC, TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS; JOHNS~N ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONC ABSTA(N: CONMiSS10NERS: I.INtJ (having not been presen* for en'ir~ hearing) Commtssioner Qarnes indlcated she was supporting the motton~ but the Planntng Commissio~ has not allowed on•sal~e beer and wine tt~is close to a school before~ but since thiY pa~ttcular use (s (nside a shopping complex and chlldren would not necessa~ily be walking past it~ she was voting in fevor. RECESS A xen-minute recess was c~11eJ at 3:20 p.m. RECO_,_, NVENE The meet i ng was reconvcned at 3: 30 p.m. ~ a I 1(.omni ss i oners being pres~nt. 1I30I78 k MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMM15510N~ January 3C, ~978 78-66 ITEM N0. 9 ~EA'OTRaRA~NTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 211 PUBLIC HEAaING. DEVEIOFERt ANIIHEIM HILLS~ iNC.~ N . 330 Anehelm N~Iis aoed, An~hetm~ CA 92807. (RE~VISION N0. 1) EN~INEER: WILLDAN ASSUCIATES~ 125 South Claudina Stre~t, Anaheim~ CA 9280y. Sub)ect property~ an irregularly-shaped parcel of land c~nststing of apprax(mately 'L4 acres located ~t tho no~theasterly corner of Avantdn de Santlego and tltdden Canyan Raad~ having approxlmat~ frontagea of 160U fset on the nortFi ~Ide of Avenida de Sentlago and 110~ feet on the east sida of Hidden C~onyon Road~ a~d being located approximstAly 5n0 feet southeasterly of the intersection of Serr~no Avenue anc111idden Canyon Ror~cl~ is proposed for an 18-lot~ R5-NS-22~0~0(SC) subdtviaton. There was no one tndlc.atinc~ th~(r prp~encc~ in opposttian to subJect request~ and alth~ugh the staff reE-ort to the Planniryg Comrol:,ston dat~d January 30~ 1978 was not read ak the public hearing~ it is rcferred to and medc e part of the minutes. It was noted the 11111 and Ganyon Municipal Advisory Canmittee (E1ACtMC) revicwed th~ ahove praposal an Janua~•y 3~ 197tS, On a roll .,all vote~ all eleven members present votcd unantrrbusly to maintain horse tr~i ls. A) I members expressed their co;icern rogardl,ig `he access probla~.s for Lot 17. The Co<<<mittee decided deletian of lights and sldewalks should be left to the discrettan of Che Trofflc Cngineer with regard to safety as spelied out in the EIR. One n~ember proposed recordiny deed resLricttons prohibii?ng t~orses b.'~~ kept on the property. Phillp BeetencourC~ representing Anaheim N(Ils~ 1nc.~ the develo~e~~ refe~red to the staff report and indlcatecl they were in agreement w(th the condit(ons as proposed. Nt sCated this troct is nearly iden~ical to che previously approved tract which (nedvertent{y expired; that the yradiny h,as been partially completed b~ceuse when H(dden Canyon Road was butit~ the pads adjacent to Nidden Canyan Road were yr~eded et ttie seme tim-:. Hc stated the questlon of street liyhts and 3idewalks would be discussed later on the ege~da. He indicated a tapographic model had been furnished for the L~mnisslon's rev(ew ~nd pointed out the baundary of Tract No. ~iy20, which ls thc Ctty's current southern boundary. He indicatod t~~eir concern about the City of Orange'S abillty to service th+~t additlnnal area and stated that at some time in the future lhey wo~~td p~oba~;y aprroach Che C~ty of Anaheim to p~ovide services. THE PUBLIG NEARING WAS CLOStO. Commissicne~ Klnq asked Mr. Bettenc:ourt t~ c~13GUSS tl:e horse trail. Mr. 8rttencourt stated they proposed to .!iminate Santiago No. 1?~ai) which was designed to service Tract Nos. 75~7 and 8520 which were origin;ily planned to be equestrtan estate areas. N~ indicated •he County of Crange has an open pac~, easement and tdentifled this area on the plans. He also s'~ted they have a license agreement to insure where te~rain differcnces would prevent kP ;na the horsc trail in !he easement aree~ that they have preserved the rfght to ride ~~ chelr property in order to link with Hidden Cany~n Road~ Ne stated Anaheim Hills~ Inc.~ wtl) heve recorded deed restrictions on Trrrct No. ~87 and 8>20 that v+ould preve~'. the keeping of horses in that area~ and are askiny that the t~et~ be ~ll,ninated on these tracts. Chairman Tolar stated that the RS-HS•22~A~J Zonr does atlow horsns and he felt ehat precludtng equestrian trails through these tracts should not be allawed; that evan thaugh they say they can control this through deed restrictions, after awhile, if enough proFerty owners want Ca have the ~eed restricti~ns changed~ they can. Ne did not like the idea of ~estrtcting a tone which allows horse~. He stated he thought the type of people who buy 1/30/78 ~~ ~ MINUTE'~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ January 30~ 1g78 78"67 EIR ~0. 211 AND TENTA7IVE MAP OF TR~ICT N0. a52~ (REV. N0. 1) (conttnued) - thase properties buy them for that purpose; that they went the rural-type life, and he did not feel ths Commisston should restr(ct this. Ne stated hc~ llkcd the dcvelopmeht and felt the people would be getting a lot for their moncsy~ but wsnted to sese the horse tralis. Commiss(onar Juhnson stated that he <11d not necessarlly agree w(tl~ Cheirman Tolar that evorybody wants horses. Ne stated there Is a lot more to country living than ho~ses and there ara Just as many peopin who wauld want to buy a half-acre lot In an aren where horses are not allawed. Commissloner Barnes asked Mr. ~ettencoure lots are prese~tly avatlable whlch a11oMr h~rses~ and Mr. Bettencuurt re~lled a ,~res~nt tlme nane~ but there 15 ~ potentla) for 200 addf*,ional lots Co [he south ~.,f t~~e ridge. He stated they would be willing to pay an additlonal premlum and put a stabling facility elong the ridgetop. Ne polnted out on the Cnpo model the particula~ are~~s he was referring to an~~ felt that pec~~le putting fences And st.~bles in thr area woul~i be t~o close to the adJacent humes. He fe11, the ridge was tao narrow to allow th~ ~Pepiny of horses on the pruperty. The Commiss(on dlscuss~d the topograpl~ic modef w(th Mr. Bettencou~t and Mr. Tld~manis from Anahetm Nills. Inc.~ wlth Mr. Bettencourt polntin,y out the curr~nt Santiago Trail No. 1 and Hidden Ca~yon Roed and the various ridges and pad arcas as proposed in this tract~ and pofnted out rtders would be able to get to tt~e Illdden C~nyo~~ Trail. He polnted out that whereve~ posstble it Is prefer~ed that the trails connect with the recorded eesement trall along the Metropolitan Water Uistrtct easement, and potnted out this area on the topegraph(c model. He pointed aut the County Ilcensc agreement gives the ~ublic the riqht to ride (n certatn areas in Hidden Canyon~ and that they are propostng later to have another access or several accesses wh~:re peoplc with horses can get th~y~+ ouc. He pointed out the houses that would be ffecteJ wiCh the dehd restrict(ons. He stated the trai) system on the pian was laid out [o scr~e equestrian uses on these lcts~ but tht~t thcy have s ince betn precl ude~i. Chainnan Tolar stated he had forgotten about the equestrian trails in Hidden Canyan Road, and chat they were really discussing deleting 1$ homes on one gide of Hidden Canyon Road an:i 3~ homes in Tract No. 75~7. Commissione~ Barnes stated her concern that of the 20Q potential lots menti~ned earlier~ maybe nonc would 5e for hors~ oroperty~ and she was aiso cnnce~ned that fucure proJects would no~ b~ suitable for equr~itrian uses because of these pruJects backing up to these properties. Ghai~ma~ Tolar stated he was sure there are people who do not want hor3es but ft would appear to him that one of the reasons people want thSs type of estate living ~s so that they can heve horses. He was concerned Chat Anaheim Hilis, Inc. might decide tF.:y would not want any horses at all up there. He felt people buying one-half acre lots would understand th~y could have horscs an.. then find out it has been precluded. Mr. Bettencourt pointed out a ma~keting survey would be avaflahle in the near futu~e and that question of whether or nat people want h~rses would be answered. He indicated they were not proposing to preclude horses from the additional lots; that they had reassured the Trails Committee that was not their intention. He stated the City would have control over the dced restrictions in that they could not ~ec~rd the CCSits without the appro~al ~f the City Attorney's Officz. Jack White~ Deputy City Attorney~ stated they do not look at deed rescrictions, and Mr. Bettencourt stated his poi~t was that they could nnt record the deed r~strictions without public kna~wledg~~ and he fclt the rest of the te~rain would be rrore suited for equestrian 1/30/78 ~ MINUTCS~ ANAI~EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Jenuury 30, 1~78 EIa N0. 211 AND TENTATIVE NAP OF TRACT N0. 8520 (REV. N0. 1) (continued) 18-68 usea than chis parttcular property. He stated a person cauld legally place an enclosed stAble on his property if he could stabilize the slop~ and be adJacent to the back yards of the people living tn the sd)acent homes. Cammiasioner Barnes restated her cancarn that aventually there will not be any hor~e proporty in the canyon arra. Commissioncr Johnson stated he could agree that sorie of the st°bies can be pretty bad; that a persun can place it on the back of Lheir half acre and nat care wha! yoes oh back therc~ but he d(d not f~e! the Commiasivn ~oulcl ga along with not having any tralis ln thts tract. Mr. Bettencourt stated those trails were to s~rve the l~ts that ellow harscs and the Tra(Is Committee hed Ayreed thls trail would s~rve no purpose since horses wou!d not be allowed; he polnted out th(s would be a maJ~r scenlc antr~nce to t.iis entira neighborhood and he did not fee) stables would be conducive to selling these homes. Ne Indicated that presentiy they do have a control to mainXaln this area, but that someday they wlll outgraw that control. Commissloner Nerbst pointed out thet Anaheim Hllls could place the dced restrictions on allowing horses, but that it was th~ Planning Commission's duty to see th~t the tra(ls are provided. Commissioner Esarnes felr, the people will want pr~mission to heve horses in the futu~e. Mr. Bette~court poinCed aut that he did noc think people rrauld be riding their ho~ses up tnto th~s area and (ndtcated Anaheim Nills~ Inc. haJ provided 6-1/? miles of equestrtan tralls on their property. He agaln pointed ~ut this is a ma)or entrance to thelr community and they do not want horsss and scaules In this arr_a; that if people can keep ho~ses then they can keep donkeys~ 3~ chickens. etc. Commissioner Barnes poEnted out that homes tn the Pe~alta lillls area sean to be selltng pretty fest and the corrsls have not I~urt their property values. Commissioner Johnson stated that some of those co~rals arc pretty sorry-looking. Mr. Bottencourt stated they were~ in additlon~ co~sidering th~ elimination of tennis cAUrts because uf the intruston of liyhts; tha~t they are on the ~Idgeline And could be viewed from the whole vall~y~ and they ~rere very particular about what goes on on the ridge. Chatrman Tolar stated he ag~eed with eiimination of the trati for T~act No. 7587 because it is so class to the S b S Constructinn hames and that he was not sure sbout Tract No. ~520 because of the number of houses on the cul-de-sac; a~d that the daed restricti~ns would be ~laced on these properties enyway~ and because this tract is a main entry to the area and a trai l could ~wt gc anywhe-'e. Nr. B~ttencourt stated that given the ~r~sent economics of land development~ thls tprrain (s getting increasingly d;fficult and chey have no inLention of proceeding furkher at thts time. ACTION: Commissloner Herbst offie~ed a motlc+n~ seconded by Commissioner King and M0710N ~D~ that Envtronmental Imp~ct Repart No. 2i1 for the p~~posed development of 7entative T~act No. 8~1J~ Rnvision No, 1, consi~ting of 18 RS-HS-22,OOQ(SC) (Residentlal, Single-Family Nillside•Scenic Corridor Over~ay) zoned lot~, having been considered this 1/30/78 .• ~ y. MINUTE.S, AI~AF''.IM CITY pL~1NNING COMMISSION~ January 30~ 1918 7a'69 E I R'' `._? i l A~i_0_ TENTATI VE MAP OF TRACT N0. 8~20 (~itEV._N0._1 }(co~tl nue:d) dete by ihe Anaheim City Planning C~mml~sion and evidence. both written ond oral~ hav(ng bec.n prcaented to supplement Jrsft EIR `~o. 211~ finds that por.ential proJeGt•c~enerated Ind~vldual and cumulettve advarse impacts have been rrduced to an acceptable 'evel by con~ormen:e wlth City plans, polic(es, and ordinences, and draft EIR No. ?.11 is 1~ complianee wtth tha Californ(a Envtronmental Qualitr Act and the Ctty a~d 5tate EIR Guldelincs and, therefore~ based upon such informatton~ Che Anahefm City Plannfng Comm{;~ion doas hereby certify EIR No. 211. ACi ~N: Commissioner Herbst offercd a motion, seconded by Cummisstor~er K~ng and MOTION CARRtEU~ tf~iat thc Anahelm Clty Planning Commiss(on does heraby find that the pr~posed subdivision. Coget~~er with !ts deslyn and improvement, is consistent with the Anahcim Generel Plan~ pursuant to Government Code Sectlon GG473.5 and does~~ therefore~ approve Tentative Map of Tract t~o. E520~ Revislon No. 1~ for an 1a-lot, RS-NS•2?.~00,~(SC) subdtvision~ and that e combinatlon walkway ar~d trail will be provlcled on ona side of the street and minimum safety lightf~g will be provided as approved by the Trafflc Englneer~ subJect to the followiny conditi~ns: i. That shoulu this subdlvislon be developed as more than ~~ne subdlv(slcn~ each subdivision therc~f sliall be submltted In tentative form for approval. 1. That all lots within th(s tract shdll be served by underground utilitles. 3. Tha~. prior to tt~e IntrocJuctinn of an ordinance~ a fi~al tract map of subJect property sh.,ll be submitted to and ap~~roved by Lhe Ctty Council anJ then be recarded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 4. Tnat any prop4sed covenants~ conditions~ and restrirtians shall be submitted to end approved by the City Attorney'~ Office prior to City Council approval of th~ final tract mep and~ further~ that the approved covenants, conditlons~ and restricttons shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. 5. That street naTCS shall be appruved by the City Planniny Department prior to approval of a final irect map. 6. That thc vw~er(s) af subject property shal) pay to the City of Anaheim the approprlate park and recreation in-lieu fees as dete~mined to '^ 3pp~•opriate by the City Council~ sald fees to be paid at the timr. the bulld(ng permit ls issued. 7. That drainaye of said property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engtneer. If~ in tie preparation of the site~ sufficlert gradinq ts requlred to necQSSitate a grading permlt, no work on grading will be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all reQuire~+ off-sit~ dratn~ge facilities have been Installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided the City thar such dralnage factlities will be con~,leted prior to October 15th, Necessary right-of-way for off-site dralnage fa~ilitles shali be dedicaeed tu the City, or the Ctty Counci~ shall have initiated conderm ation proceedinys the~efor (the costs of wnich shall be borne hy the developer) prlor to the commencemant of gr•ading ~perations. The requtrcd drainagc facilikies shall be of a size and type sufficie~t to carry runoff waters orlglnating from highe~ properties through said praperty to ultimate d(sposal as approved by the City Enginecr. Said drainage f~acltities shall be the flrst icem of co~structlun and shall be completsd and be functional throuyhout the tract and from the dawnstream boundary of the property to the ultimate potnt of disposal prior to th~ issuance of i~ny final building inspections or occupancy permits. Draln~ge district reimbursement agreements may be made availa5le to the developers of said property upon th~ir raquesL. 8. That grading~ ex~avation~ and all other construztion acEivitiss shall be conduceed in such a manner sn as to mi~tmize the posstbiltty of any stlt originating from this proJect being carried Into the Santa Ana Rtver by storm water originating from ar flowing through thls proJect. 9. That the alignment and terminal potnt of storm drains shown on this tentative tract map shall nat be considered final. These drains sholl be subJect to precise design constderations anci ~pproval uf the City Engtneer. t/3o/18 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ January 30, 1978 78'7~ EIR N0. 211 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TFtACT N0. 8y20 (REV. N0. 1) (contlnued) 10. If permenent street name signs have not been installed, temporary street r,eme signs she'1 be instAlle~! p~tor to any occupAncy. 11. Thst trash storage areas shell be provlded ln accordance with approved plans on file aith the offlce of the Olrector of Publlc Works. 12. That prlor to approval of the flnal troct rrbp, the pstitioner shall n~ake som~ provlsien~ accaptable to the Clty Cou~ctl~ for landscap(ng and malntenance of the slopos withl~ end/or created by the development of this property. 13. That the minlmum dcsign s~~ed for Avenida dc Santiayo shall be 25 miles per hour. 14. That all structuros shall be constructed in accord~nce w(th the requlrements of the City of Anahetm Fire 2one No. -+ and approved by the Flre Department. 15. That flrebreaks shall bc constructed subj^ct to the review and approval of th~ City of Anahctm Flrc Department. 1G. That the developer of sub)ect tract shall enter In a spec(al facllitles agreement with the City for wate~ fac(litles in the High Elevation System as ~equlred by Rule 15B of Che Water Ut(Iity Rates~ Rules~ and Reyulstions ~~~'lor to epproval of a final tract map~ as stipulated to by the petitton~r. 17. 7hat prior to arproval of a final tract map, ~ combination pedestrlan walkway and equestr(an and hik(ng tratl consisting of decomposed granlte or ~ sir~ilar City-approved material shall be provided ~n one slde of Ave~lda dr. Santlago In accordance witl~ the epproved Equest.rlan and Hikin:~ Trails Element of the Anahelm General Plan. 18. That prlor to approval of a final tract map, acceptablc vehicular access st~a!1 be provided to Lot No. 17. 19. In accordance with the requirements of Section 1~.02.047 pQrtaining to the initta) sale of resldentt~) homes in the City of Anahei~r Planning Area "B"~ the seller shali provide each buyer with wricten informotlon concerning the Anaheim General Plan snd the axisting zoning wlthin 300 feet of the boundaries of subJect tract. 20. Tt~at minlmum strect !ightiny consisting of safety ltyhting approved by the City Trafflc Engineer and the Electrical Divlsion of the Publ(c Urilities Department may be constructed subJect to a bond bei~9 posted to guarantee 1~stAllatlon of complete street ligh+:ing at any time durinq the two-year pertod follvwing recorJatlon of the final trac' map~ if' such ilghting Is deter,ni~ed to be necessa~y for [he health~ safety, and welfare of the residents In subJect tract. ITCM NQ. 10 REPORYS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. ABANOONh1E~~T N0. 77-12A - A portion of an existing pub~ic ellcy ocated south o Hroadway, east of Melrose Strecc. The staff repo~t to the Planning Commission dated January 3p~ ~97~ wes presented~ noting the rec~uest far ~:.~andonrtwnt of an ~:xisting publ ic al ley located south of Broadway, east of Melrose st~eet~ was submitted f~r action by the Plenning Cortrmisslon in compliance with the provisions of Section a0435 of the Stace of California Go•~ernment Code~ an~1 it was recomnende~d that the City Council approve this request by resolutton subJecz to the reservation of a p~blic utility easeme~t as required by the Pacific Telephone 6 Telegraph Company; that the Fi~e ~hief requcsts the abandonment i~ en effort to minimize da~ger to the public and po~tentla) iiability to thc City for posslble injury; and this abandoRrnent is categorlcally exempt from the filing of an EIR. ACTION: C~xnmis~ioner King offered a motion, secanded by Commissioner LI~n and MOTION R E0~ tl~at tt~e Anaheim City Planni~g Comnission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the request for Abandonmenc No. 77-12A be approved. 1/3o/7f: MINUTES~ ANAIiCIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSInN~ January 30~ ~97~ 78-71 ~• common~yEknowo~es7 «srmosa Drive~loceted north~~f LabPalmatAvenue~ west of West Strect. Tht~ staf f report to the P I ann ( ng Conunl ss i on dated Jenuary 3~ ~ 1° 7a was presented ~ not I ng the request for abandonmerit of a portlo~ of an exlstlnc~ public street coinm~nly known as Hermosa Drive located (n Tract IJa. 16~~1 ~ nortl~ of La Pelme l~enue. west of West Street~ wbs submltted for a:tlQ~ blifornlaeStreets~ancfsHlyhwoyscCodei~n~.c with th~ provisions of Section t~323 qf thc Ca I t wes noted that tl~e Ui rector ~f the Planning Depar;mant tias determined ~'~f AnahelmpQSCd ectivlty falls w(tl~in ti~e definition nf S~~tiori 3.Q1 Clas~ ~~ of tlie Cit~ Guld~lines to the Requlren~ents for an Environmental Impact Report ++nd is~ thercfor~~ cetegori co1 1y exempt from the requi reinent t~~ f 1 le an EI R. ACTION: Commissionnr Jolinson c,ffered t~ motion~ seconded by Commissioner L(n~ and MOTION C f~R EU. that the Anaheim Gity Plannin~~ Commission doas hereby recommencf to the City Caunci l Chat tlie rec~uest for Auondunmr:rit l~o, 71-9~ be approved~ subJect to Condi tians 1~ 2 and 3 as recommended by the ~'ublic Wor~,s Dcpartment/Enyineering Dtvision. C. TLNTATIVt 11AP Of TRACT NOS. 7>d~l A;~D ci5?.0 - Request for waiver of conv~ ene tiona street igl~tiny and sidewa k standards. The staff repo~t to the Planning Commission dated January 30~ 197~, was presented, noting subject property (Trbcc Na. /5~7) is an irregularly-sl~aped parce) of land consisting of approxtmately 43 acres located southerly uf SerrAnu Aver~uc~ westerly of Hldden Canyon Road, and northerly of Ave~ida de Santlayo~and subl~oximatelrt2~(acre.. locat~d attthen irreyularly•shaped parcel of lan~ consisting of app Y ' northeasteriy corner of Aven(da de Sanciago and Hidden :anyon Roed~ and being located approxtmately ~00 feet southea~terly of thc intersection of Serrano Avenue and Nidden Canyun Road; chat Anahe(m 1~(lls. Int -eques[s a pe nnanent waiver of conventional street lighting standards for Trect lios. 7~a7. fsS2~~ and the five-acre parcel located at the southeast corner of1Sion~~sidewalkestandardseonCT~act Nos~ 7587aanc~ ~iy20nt walver of conventional subdiv s Philip ~ettencour[, representiny Anaheirn Hills, Inc.~ explained this rEquestif4theeiver of conventional street ligl~ting anJ sidewalk standards would nut be necessary pr~perty owners were anyonc other than ~n~heim Hills. tle pointed out the rural atmosphere of this area and ai~ not fee! the conventional Ityhting and side-~alks should be necessary. He indicated the klill and Canyon Municipal Advisory Commi:tee (IIACMAC) has endorsed thls request and t~'eCO~datlonY f~anfinal8tractr~apdifhinstallationrwas~determined to beear pertod after necassary. Conxnissioner Herbst indicated wit`~ people iogginy~ walking, etc.~ minimum safety lighting and some sort of walkNay should be providsc~ along the street. and this walkway could be iRCOrporated wich an equestr(an trail. Commissio~er Barnes stated siie did not thlnk people are goin~ to r~QShetagraedtthathno or sidewalks In the future; tfi at people want to live in a rural e~ea. street lights or siJewalks should be required fo~ Tract No. 8$20, but felt they shoutd be required for Tract No. 7587; she felt minimum safety lightin5 should be prvvlded for safety reasor . 1/30/78 ,.. ~ M INUTL'S, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING GONMISSION~ January 3~~ ~91$ ~~'72 1 TEM C(cont 1 nued) Mr, Uotte~c~urt poi~i;~d out tha density ls so law that he dld not feel s(dewalka and s troet I i ghts would be des i reJ. Cammisslvner King refe~rad t~o Mr. bettesncourt's state~~nent thAt Counci) had app~oved th~ee tracts wi tli minimum ll~,iting for a two-year crial periud~ and Mr. aectencourt replied that the C~unell hes made e de:terminat(on to al low this t~ ial perlod and that a bond has be~n pos ted an d t f t~e peop 1 e or G 1 ty Counc I 1 ciec i de they wen t thG s t ree t 11 qhts ~r s i dewa 1 ks i nstalled lat~r, then i t wi 1 1 be done. Cammissloner Herbst referred to tfie wiring stubbecl into ttiese lots and aslced (f that was for electrical service or street liyhts~ and Mr. Bocte~ncourt replied thnt it was electrlca) service to these lots and that wiring for st~eet Ilgh[s wes provld~d. ACTIONt Commissioner f3arnes offerPd a n~tion, ~econcied by f.omm(ssloner Linn and MOYION CA R EU~ that the request for walver of coriventlonal street llghting dnJ sidewalk standards for Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 75U1 an~J £i520 be recommendeci to tha City Councll for epprova I ~f a con~b ( nat i on wa 1 kw~y and sques t r i an tra i 1 of decomp~sed gran i te or a slmllarly-approvcd m~teriAl on one slde of ttie str~et and minimum saPety Iic~l~ting slmilar to previously-approv~d l iyh[Iny f~r three tracts by thc C tty Counci l on a Crfal basis wlth ~ bond posted for instnllation~ (f detcrmined necessary~ for two years After reco~datto~ of a final tract map. Commi ss i oner J~hnson ~ tated he 1 i ves i n a~ area w I th no s i J~wa 1 Ns and i t was a good I daa 20 years ayo~ but nnw with cliildren walkinq ir~ t-ie siree[ and }oggers in ttu street~ and the fect that ttie City uf Anal~cim fs not cxperienced with taking care of country roa ds, i t Is a hazard. He felt that beceuse times I~ave changed, th~ walkway should be plrced on on$ side of the street. Jey Tltu~~ Office Enginccr, pointed out cliat the street riyht"OP'WAY I4 5~ feet for Avanida de Santiago~ with 1l~-112 feet being reserved far cither horse trai 1 or pedestrian walkway area for one side of the str,:eC. U. RE UE5T FROM ORANGE COUNTY FL000 CONTROL DtSTRICT - For compliance w th the Genera an o proposed aGquis tion o property. Thc staff report Co the Plar~nin~~ Commission dated January 3~. 1~7~s was presented~ noting the Orange County Fload Control District proposes to acquire a 0.1~7 acre parcel uf land I~cated on the north side of the Santa Ana River and west of Impcrial Ilighway in the City af Anaheim~ a~d that prior to acquisition and to cornply with Section 65402 of the Gavernr-~en t Code of the S tate of Ca 1 i forn i a. a f i nd i ng of comp 1 i ance wl th the Gene ra 1 P 1 an needs to be made by the P 1 ann i ng Commi ss i on , ACTIO~I: Commissioner King offered R~ssolution No. PZ73-23 and mo~ed for its passage and a opt on that the Anaheim Clty Plan-~ing Commission does hereby find that the proposed acquls i tlon of r~al property located o~ che north s ide of the Santa Ana Rtver and wast of Imperlal Highway in thc City ~f Anaheim is in compl iance wlth the City of Anaheim GenerAl Plan, On rnl l c~ll, the foregoing resoluti~n was passed by the following vote; AYESt COMNISSIONERS: BARNLS. DAVIU~ NERBST, JOH~~SON~ Y~ING~ LINN, TOLAR NOES: COMNI SS t ONERS : NONE A~5EN i: COMM 1 SS I ONE RS : NONE 1/30/78 ~. f MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANkING COMMISSION~ Janu+ery 30, 197a 78-73 E~ CONpITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1 JJ2 - Amendment of aesolutien No. PC77-2GQ~ - .. -- nunc pro tunc. It was noie~d that due to a clericel er~o~~ Resoluttan No. 77-z60, granting Candltlnne) Use Parmit No. 1772r was inadequate end a new resolution should be Issued to permit on-sale beer and wine (n a proposed seml-enclosed r,:staurant. ACTION; Comnissioner Kiny offered Resolutir+n Na. PC1~•24 and moved f~r its paasege and ec~opt~on that the Anahefm City P1annlny Conmisslo~ cioes hcreby amend Resolution No. PC77~ 26q~ nunc pro tunc~ In connPCtlon with Conditional Use Permit No. 17J2. On roll call. the foregoing resolution wrs pi~sscd by the following vote: AYESt COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ OAVIU~ HE.RBST~ JOIIN50N, KING~ LINN, TOLAR NOCS; GOMMI55I ONLkS : NONE ABSENT: COMMI55I ONERS : NOI~E WORK SESS i ON Annika Ssc~talohti ~ Assistant Df rector for lonir,y~ poinced out staff is ~equesting that the work sess ion scheduled for February 23~ 1978. t~e held nn Aprl l 3~ 1978~ In order to have the resul ts oP a survey b~ing c,onducted by A~~t~eim Ill l ls, Inc. ADJOURNMENT Commisstone~ King offered a motl~n~ secondcd by Commisstoner David and MOTION CARRIED~ that the meeting tre J1,iJ~urned. The meetiny was adJourned at 4:55 p.m. Rcspectfully submitted, ~t'C t ~ ~-.. i. ,. ~ .c~,_. ~ ' ~ ~~ Edith L. flarris, Secreta~y Anaheim City Planning Commission ELNthm