The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1978/03/09Ctty Hall Anahetm, Celifornia M~rct~ 9, 1978 SPECIAL MEETING OF TNE ANAt1EIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION 5PECIAL - A spectal meeCing of the An~hetm City Planntn~ Commission was called to MEETING order by Chatrman Pra T~mpore Herbst at 7:Op p.m.~ March 9~ 1978~ In the Council Chamber~ a quorum being p~esent. PRESENT - CIiAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: Herbst COMMISSIONERS: Barnes~ Devtd~ Johnson~ Ktng~ l.tnn ABSENT - CIIAIRMAN; To{ar ALSO PRESEt~ - Ronald Thomps~n Philllp Schwartze Ron Smith Edith Harris Planning Depertment Dtrectar Assistant Dlrector for Planning Associate Planner Planninq Commiseion Secretary PLEUGE OF - The Plcdge of Allegiance to the Fleg was led by Gortnnissioner Barnes. ALLEGIANCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 212 PUtILIC HEARING. It~iTIATED BY TNE ANAHEIM CITY N M N N0. i+,, PLANNING COMMISSION. To consider ~lternate proposels of ultimate land uses (stngle-fAmlly restdcntial~ multiple-famlly restdent(al~ conrnercia) office~ industrial and combinallons c,f these for the area~ de~cribed as follows: 1. Northeast of the intersection of Haster Street and Sirnrbns Av~Y~ue. II. East side of State Callege Boulevard~ ge~crally south of Vik~ng Avenue~ extendtng ge~erally to Vermont Avenue. lil. Area encompassing app~oximately 40 acres northeast of the incersection of Harbor Boulevard and Chapman Avenue. IV. Property lying adJecent to the northwest corne~ of Katella Avenue and Walnut Street. V. Area adJacent Lo the southwest corner of Rampart Street and Orangesrr~od Avenue . VI. A~ea east of Santa Ana Freeway~ south of Katella Avenue, north of Orangewood A~enue~ west of State College Oaulevard. Also, a Circulation Element eveluating City standards for roadway designations and standa~ds. Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst explained that after review of th~ Circulation Element proposed to the Ge~eral Plan with the la~ge property owners in the Sant~ A~a Canyort (Bauer Ranch~ Anaheim Hills, Inc.~ Wallace property~ and Baptist Church property) and the Hill and Canyon Muntclpal Advisory Committee (HACMAC)~ it was apparent that further study was needed tn the Weir Ca~yon area w(th reference to the location of the proposed .~rteria) higM~rays~ and it was staff's recommendation that this portion of the General Pl~n amendment be po~tponed. 78-116 3/9/78 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ March 9~ 1978 7R-117 EIR N0. 212 AND GENERAL PLh ~ENDMENT N0. 14y (conttnuod) ACTION: Commtssioner D~vid offer4d a motlon~ seconded by Commissfoner Johnson and MOTION ~1~0 UNANIMOUSLY (Chalrman Tolar baing absent)~ that conslderatton af the Circulat(on Element be termtneted fror~ Genoral Plan Am~ndment No. 145 and set fnr a now publlc he~~ing. Phillip Schwartze, Assistant Di~ec[or for Planning~ ~xplatned the requlr~ments by lew for the General Plan amendrt-rnt and polnted out Chere are slx araas to be dlscussed et thts haertng~ and that staff would be propoalny e number of alternstlve land uses for these areas. He explained that the ConNnisslon's actions are advisory to the City Caunctl and any rec~mmendattons would be mede to them; thet e night rt~eting had been Yet in order to abtaln maxlmum citlzen parttctp~tion; that staff had held meetings wtth the res(de~ts~ explatning the proposols. He Introduced Mr. Ron Sm(th~ who would be making the presentatlon and explaining the exhlbits. The staff report to the Planning Coinm(ssion dated March 9~ 1q78~ Por Gencral Plan Amendment No. 1~5 was prescnted by Mr. Smith. This r~port notes the General Plan amendment consists of six separAte land use casex and a revision to the Clrculatton Elemant. The six ereas Include the follow(ng: AREA I- HASTER STREET ANO SIMMOtJS AVENUE. This is a City Counctl initiated request to evaluate alternettve land use proposals far th~ 5'1/7. acre site. Currently~ the property is des(gnated medfum and lar-medium density on the Ganeral Plan and Is currently zoned residential/agr~cultura) (RS•A-43,00~). There a~e nine parccls and a totnl ~f cight units on varlous port!ons of the slte. The area ts bounded by Slmmo~s Avenue and Naster Street~ neithe~ street being fully irnproved wlth curb~ gutters~ sidewalks~ and roaciway wldth. Thts slte has undergone extensive revtew during the last etght months. Reclassification Nos. 76-77-5~+ and 7G-77-SS (RH-1200)~ Variance Nos. 2936 and 2937 and Tract No. 9fi15 we~e den(ed by the City Council on November 8~ 1977. A series af six alternattves have been prepared by the Planni~g Department staff and were explained by Mr. Smith. Exhibit A- low density residential (7 units per gross acre) on 5.~ acres; design~ed with homes frontiny ont~ Slmmons with a cul-de-sac provided off Haster Street and the extension of Mountain View Av~nue to Simmons. This would require assemblege of parcels of la~d. There are oth~r potential site designs~ such as rearing lots onto Simnons Avenue and internal street pattern that would not ~rovtde access to Stmmons Avenue. Exhibit 6- low density residential (7 units per gross acre) on 2.3 acres; low-medium density (19 units per gross acre) on .3 acres; medium density (36 units per gross acre) on 3.2 acres. Thts exhtbit allows for sinyle-family ~esidential fronting on Simmons Avenue wlth attached units adJacent ta the existing units along Wilken Way and Mountain View Avenue. There are pragmatic limitations since multiple-famlly zoning contains a height Ilmitation of one story within ly0 feet of single-family ioning~ which me:ans any attached unEts would be restricted to one story. Exhiblt C- medium density (36 units per gross ec~e) on ~.8 acres. The wester~ portion is designated medium density on the ~enerai Plan. This cat~gory generally means apartments or attached units. Exhibit Q- Iow-medtum denstty (18 units per gross acre) nn 5.8 acres. The eastern portion is currently designated low-mediurn an the General Plan. It would be possible to coRStruct single-family~ as well, under such destgnation. 3/9/78 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ March 9~ i978 78-118 EIR N0. 212 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENOMENT N0. I~;~ (continued) Exhibft E- Iow danslcy (up to 7 units per gross acre) on 2.3 acres; lav-medium (up to 18 units pQr gross scre) on 3.~ ecres. Thts exhlb(t dssumes low denstty res(denttal alony Sinwnons Avenue~ with low-medium nortiierly of the lc~w cknsity. The low-medtum wvuld be rostricted to one sto ry adjacent ta low density zoning. Exhlblt F- law denslty (7 units unlts per gross acre) o~ ~,2 acr~ Sirmons Avanue a~d the southerly medium denslty deelgnation would along Wilken Way~ and the hetght wvuld limit development. per yross acre) on 2.6 acres; medlum density (36 es. This exhlblt assumes low dens(ty adJacent to extenston of Mou~tatn Vlew Avenue. The existing remein ad)aGent to the medtum density apartments restriction of I5~ feet from single-family z~ning Mr. Smith expia(neJ a questtonna(re was sent to 221 legel property owners (n the araa and presented the tabulation from 7j returns, by category: (1) City of Anal~e(m residents; (2) City of Anahelm property vwncrs but not llvtny on thc property (absentee landlords); and ~3) Ctty of Oranye and Gardr.n Grove residents. Of t~~e 7S responsss received, 6~ favored stngle-family r~sidences~ 5 duplexes and triplexes~ $ townhouses~ and 2 apartments. Mr. Smith explained elso that a community meettng had been Field wlth approxfmately 30 re~ldents attending and that the alte rnatives had been reviewed. He explatned thet property owners within 300 feet of the subject area had been notlfied of the public hearing~ but tl~at at the mee[ing tt was ~equeated an edditional 70 nottces be sent, and that these had been added ta the list. Ne indicated the reside~ts' concern regard(ng crtme ~nd ~eferred to information received from Captal~ Kennedy of [he Pollce O~partment indicattng that particul~ir area of Naster Street and Stmmons Avenue extcnding narth to Wakefield and aver to Narbor~ not including the commercial~ encompasses 1.1$ of the totai crtme in the Type I catego ry(those being the most sertous crimes tn the c(ty)~ hawever~ the area hss 2.7~ of the total population of the City. He ind(catcd the police do not fee) they have a severe crime problem tn that area. He indicated the concerns of the restdents have been communicatsd to the Chief of Police. Dr. H. M. Foster~ 2t58 Jetty Drive~ M aheim~ indicated h~ had bought his house 14 years ago in an R-1 area~ assumtng it would rematn so zoned; ~hat chis has been a good neighborhood and he has enJoyed 1(ving there. He i~dtcated he is curre~tly planning to remedel and spend approximately $4~~OQ0 to make it a nicer plt~ce to live end planned to spend th~ rest of his 1(fe there. Ile stated he fel~ rezoning this prope~ty to anything other than R-1 would be a definite disservice to the residents of the area. James Thies, 2131 Sauth Spinnaker~ indicated it was the ~esidents' ~m derstanding at the last City Lounctl meeting that they had made tt quite clear they want to keep single- family dwellings and understoad the City Councll was going to leave ~t that way; that they do not want medium density apartment units, duplexe~,~ triplexes, or anyth(ng of that nature, but wlshed to keep the n~ighborhood as it is. He felt this Is a rather unlque area fn Anaheim; that the neighbors do stand behind each other and haYe had several community mectings and agree they want to keep single-famtly dwellings. Rose Nindr~ian, 501 East Wilken Way~ Anaheim~ i~dicated she had talked with Ran Smlth during a communtty meeting about the polica probl~ms; that she~ her husband, and other members of the communtty ar= police offtcers and she has talked wlth several police officers on the officer level who have indicated that section of town is the worst part of town. She indicated Nr. Smtth had stated he had requested information from Captain Knn~eciy on Type 1 crimes~ and that Type 1 crimes are homicide~ auto theft. rape~ ~obbery and theft of ove~ S50o but do not Include narcotics~ prostitution, reckless driving, Juvenile delinquency, and othe~ problems this area is plagued with. She fclt ~esults of the questtonnatre sent to the residents within 300 fett of subJect property would make an Incomplete and 3/9/78 MINUTES~ AHAHEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSIQN~ March 9~ 1978 78~119 EIR N0. 212 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 145 (continuad) inaccurete report because there are peoplo tarther away th~n 3~~ feet who are dtrectly affected by whet happens to this parttculer pro~erty~ and IndlcAted those peopte live on East Wilke~ Way. Nautical~ Anchor~ and Spinneker. She ~eferred to a statement in the steff report by M~. Smith which indicates that tha htghe~ the density of tha papuletlon~ the hlgher the crima rate~ end naw he Is trying to say this is not true~ that Captai~ Kennedy seys this erea Is not a problem. She indic~ted that, as a police offtcer~ she knows that snytime ;here are a lot of people together~ there is going to be a higher crime rate. She tndlcated there are not enough parks for the chiid~en now a~d that Pa~derosa Park is overc~owded and ts the only pa~k in the ar~a, 5he read a statement frcxn Lloyd Trapp of the Anahelm Parks and Recreation bepariment that the minimum pa~k standard is one Acre for 1~000 people and that as of the 1972 ccnsus, Pandeross Park sarvices 10~89~ Anaheim resldents only and has only 9~cres; that this does not includc thc Garden Grovc~ Orange and Orange County resldents who aiso use that park; and that the population sl~ce 1972 has increased Jrasttcally. She (ndfcated they ware told by Mr. Smtth nt the cortnnun(ty meeting that someone was lookfny at the possibility of another park tn thc Chapman-Herbor ~rea and she falt w(tt~ the t~x decrease expected this year~ either through recently-passed legislation or the Jarvis Amen ~nent~ there is not gotng to be any funds for pa~ka; that thare is talk of a decrease in police protectlon, the schools, and other governmental facllitles. She stated she did not see how apartments~ cond aniniums or any othe~ multiple-fam(ly units would work in this area. Concerntng the traff(c~ she stated Mr. Smith had indtcated Naster Street can handle over 17~OQ0 cars. and ~ndicated the. residents were not worried about Haster because they could not get onto Haster at thc present time because. of the t~afflc. She indlcated she did not see how the Planning Commissian could vc~te for any other zoning than what has baen on the property for years; that ho~ises havc ~^en built o~ the property since 19~i9 when the Genera) Plan was adopted and wondered ir they had bcen told ihat this area would be changed to scxnething other than law density. Lee Staley, 1~4 West Tiller~ Anal~eim~ was concerned about the expense of putti~g in sidewalks~ referring to the fact tf~at there are no sidewalks in the area at this t(me. Ne indlcated he had been working on his property~ adding rooms, etc.~ and asked if someone would profit by putttng (n more res(dential unit~ and the~ the City would put In sldewalks and Gharge the cur~ent residents for them. Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst pointad out that regardless af what type development is put on a pro~erty~ curbs and sidewalks will be provided by the developer for that property and the street would be widened to Its ultir~ate width. Ron Smith indicated that with ~eference to the e~vironmental impact repart, the Engtneering Departme,nt had furnished informatfon that they do havc a problem with water runoff north of Haster Street and that it is on the Master Plan of Orainage to Imprave that area. Mr. Staley indlcated he had called the City and Inquired about this pro~cct and did not k~ow the person's namc, but had been told tf the prope~ty owners wa~ted to have sidewatks, they wauld have to pay for them. ~e lndicated he currently has trouble wtth chtldren climbing across his grapestake fence and he constently has to repair it a~d was worried that wtth a highar density this wouid be even a greater problem. 3/9/78 MINUTES. ANAMEIM CITY PLANNING COMNISSION~ March 9, 1978 78-12Q EIR N0. 212 AND GENERAL PL~N_ANENDMENT N0. 1N (continued) He roforred to anothe~ item on the agenda for the cvening concernina Tiller Way and indtcated th~t if Tlller Way is opened up. he would have problems from two sldes. Mr. Schwsrtze, Assistant Dlrcctor for Pianntng~ potnted out thpt the city boundary line is Simm~n~ and everythtng south of Sin~ns is in Garden G~ove or Orange and that those problems o~ Tiller are not In Anahetm's Jurisdiction. Mr. Staley polnted out he does live in Anaheim and pays Anahelm taxes~ snd Mr. Schwartze clarifted that the area sauth of Simmons Is in elther Gard~n Grove ~r Orenge. Jantce Staley~ 1Q~~ West Tiller, Anahelm~ referred to the school problem and tndicated they live tn A~ahelm but their clitldren have to 9o to school in Garden Grove. She stated buses were nat allowed at the beginning of ~he school year ~nd it took her 24 minutes to drive one way to Garden Grove Nlgli School and asked if a higher density is allowed~ where would the chlld~en go to school slnce they cennot qo to the Andheim School Dtstrict. Leroy Williams indlcated he was the owner ~f one of the duplexcs on Mount~in View Avenue and he dld not want Mountatn Vt~w opened; that one of the reasons hc had bflught the duplex on that street was because he liked the area because It wes A closed straet and the traffic would not be fast and heavy. Gerald Ghelfl~ ~+5k2 West Slmmons Avenue~ Orange, indicate~ hls property ts almost across the street from the area in qucstion. He wished to support Lhe rertu+rks of the last gentlaman; that in no way dld he want Hountain View opened and dtd n~t think the people who ltv@ on Mountain View want it apened; that he felt this was a configuratlon dreamed up by the Planning Department and It wouid be a dlsaster. He indicated the Anahelm Poltce had come to the area to stap people from drivtng mc~torcycles on the vacant Clow property and that the police officer had mentl oned that same problem and In no way felt lt should be opened with the traffic going to the 11quAr store at Orangewood snd Mountain Vicw. Ne indlcated that he would Iike to support the ldea of single-family homes in this area because of property values. He indicated that some time ego a few of the neighbors had felt townhouses might be a better way to go~ in view ~f the cost of houstng, but do not agree since they had gotten appraisals on their propertY and that a campetitive merket analysis of homes (n the area had been done, and that their homes are sell(ng at much higher prices than they had originally thought. He potnted out that homes on Anchor are sell(ng between $68,000 and $77,OQ0~ on Nautical for $8~,950, and ~n Wilken 41ay for 575~000. He indicated hls property (s one-half acre and that the house value is considerably over $100,00Q~ and thac he wlshed to potnt out he felt stngle-family homes could be built and be prof(table and sttil be consistent with the nelghborhood. Ne indicated~ again, that he dtd not feel Mountain View should be opened. Dan L. Rowland~ 100(2 West La Palma Avenue~ Anahelm. representing Mr. Clow~ whose property ancampasses the largest share of the prcfperty bc(ng discussed, tndicated the proposrl presented for a multipie-family pro,Ject based on thc General P1an as proposed for the lest 12 years was in o~de~; that the plan was denied by the Planning Commission based on thC multttude of requests for waivers from the multipie-family ordinances Tn order to develop the maximum density on that piece of properky. He stated Mr. Claw had retal~nd him to revid+ the plan and see if tt could be 6rought into focus and be withln the community standards; that they had brought back ~ plan for medium density restdential development. which represented about 50$ of the potenttal of that zonc; that the plan was ~evTewed at a cortimuntty meetYng and~ in fact, had been reviewed at th~ee or fou~ community meettngs with a turnout of about 20 to 25 people, which is a heavy turnout. Ne indlcated they have been unable to get the support of any of the residents excrpt Mr. Ghelfi and his group and they tt~ought this was the best praposal. He lndicated the plan was b~ought back to the 3/9/7$ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ March 9~ 197a 78-121 EIR N0. 21x AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 14~ (conttnued) Planning Commisston for m~d(um denslty residentta) at t+n adverttsed publtc hearing~ and at thot ~+ub11c hearing they had changed thetr propnsel to RM-4000. Nhich Is low-medtum density~ roughly 8 untts per ~crc. Ne stated that ~sven though the property is sulted aryd long-edvnrtisec! as rra dtum density~ they felt thls wos the best proJect thay could develop beceuse of geographlcal ~easons. Ne indicated thls property is e p~line. finite~ nAtura) resource and that It (s the only signiftcani~ undeveloped ptece of property in the area and ts Arlme for developmant to Its ulttmate use~ and he felt tt would be almost crtminal to waste this pruperty without ~r~viding housing people can affard in thet partlcular area. He referred to a letter frvm M~, Ghelfi ~egarding the prices of houses~ and he f~lt hts concern w(th property values wes not pertinent s(nce he did not Ilve ln thls conmunity. Ne tndlcated the General Plan hc:arings had been advertised and th~ aplnlons of the citles of Gardcn Grove and Orange had been salictted b~fnrP th~ Gen~ral Plan was adopted and the City of An~heim has exerctsed its obligatlon in that regarci. Ne felt th~ fact that hou5es sell betw~cn $~0~00~ anJ S90~000 does not ~ltcr the fact that singl~-family houses built todey in thls area would sell tn ~xcess of $10~~000 and probably closer to $125~OOQ, and he was not sure tl~at area would bc marl:etabie for thnse type houses; that there are a lot of S125,OQ0 houses In this area. N~ stated that he belicves tt~e program for a very low density, quality tawnhous~ program Is absolutely the best use of this prope~ty because it cannot be developed economtcally in the stnyle-family residential mode; thac the land dors not lend itself to singie-family ~development and it wlll not work. Ne stated he fclt :hr biggest single complaint of those present Has the trafflc problems on Simmons and tiaster. Ne staced Hester Street ts an arteria) highway and~ in getting onto Haster from Simmons which is not a futly developed street, you are dealing with one- half the capacity of Sirm~ns because the dedicati~ns have not been mbde and the road Is not improved on the north side~ And those Improvements will not take place until the praperty is d~veloped, Ne indicated that If the people are successful in blocking development, the property would r!aSt 1(kely remain in its prescnt state until snoth~r politicel era comes along. If tl~at happens~ tF~e traffic probtems they have now wil) remain the san+e. they won't get any worse but they won't get eny better. Ne indicated he felt the meetings have been well advertised and that the normal notification to the res(dents 300 feet from the corners of subJact praperties hes been done~ and that within 300 feet from Mr. Clow's property there are 21 s~ngle-famtly dwellings n the City of ~,nah~im~ but within the study area there are 28 singie-fam~ly residenc~.s in the Ctty of AnahAim w(thin the 300-foot ra~tus, and the fact that 221 questionnaires were sent ~ut is roughly ten times the coverage than is normal. Ne realized this Is a s~nsitive area but felt that it had been well advertised. He referred t~ the exhtblts for this area and indicated the praposals called for on Exhiblt A could not be developed by Mr. Clvw because it could not be developed wfth 7200- square foot lots without a tremendous amQUnt of variances. Also~ Exhibit B is quitc a hodgepodge and to devalop it would bc an open invitation to requesst var(ances. He indicattd he was not crlt(cizing thess exhibits as posslbflittes for General Plan conflgurattons. but that he was Just pointing out from a technician's standpoint that these are not very good for that piece of property. He indicated the same was not true on Exhibit C~ which works b~cause naturally it ia what is existing and the configuration would work and provide a reason~ble llvtng environment for those whe ltve there. He pointed out this would allow 209 dwelling units per ac~e and that they propose 5~: that the 2.$22 dsily t~affic trips would be smaller; and th~t their request was for t~e RM-4000 development far 34 units rather than 209. He indicated Exhlbit D(s s usable eonfiquration for them~ but that he ~s speaktng only for Mr. Clav. He pointed out that under the meximum number of dwelling un(ts of 134 they are proposing using the establlshed 3/9/78 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMIS510N~ March 9~ 1978 78-122 EIR ~IQ. 212 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NQ. _14~ (continuad) datly trafftc trips refer~ed to on pa~e 2 under Exhibit A and the estimatnd daily traffic tripa would be 600~ so rathar than croating an increase (n treffic they weuld be putttng In e progrsm to reduce potentlel trafftc. He indicated Exhibits E end F have the seme problen-s as some of the others; that the ec:tual slte design would create the same hardships. He indicated that tha Planning ~taff has dono a c~eative Job tn being ~ble to put toc~ether these conf(guratl~ns on this pr~perty that ts beset wtth difflcultles~ ~nd that he could guarantee that lf thc pruperty is develnped with stngle-family units, Mountain Vlew would certelnly have to be contlnued through~ as would three other streets~ in order ta provide access tn thts site. Ne tndtcated the shape of the property makes devclopmr.nt dtfficult; that 100 feet of the frontagc ls on Master Street and 17 fect bclo~• ~ to Mr. Clow. which ere (n the nxtenston of Mountain View. Hn pointed out the traffic circulatton on th~e mep and indicated that if the property is develop~d witi~ single-family I~oustnc~~ a street would have to be provided. He Indicated he dld not think the people who lived west of NASter Street should be concerned abouC the impact of this praJect because they are separated by an arterlal highway and have all the problems the~ can handle, and that trafflc across Haster on Simmons~ Wllken Way and eny ather streets would ~~t really be a problem. He polnted out the proposed project is es low a density as thts property can be develo~ed and still provide amenittes ~nd that at some point the propcrty will be developed In a manner other than what It Is t~day~ and hc felt thls was the best way thts property cauld be devetoped; that lt is reasonable in circulation and traff~c and Is a good proJect; that lt Is a ve ry luw density arrangement and if it could be developed in any other k~ay. he would like to have some help in Jesl9ning it; thet it is 100 faet wide and e street requlres 60 feet. Lee Staley stat~d Ghat a point was madc regarding the survey by market value~ that the men did not live in the city and wondered if the Commission was a-~arc the property owner of th(s property does not ltve in the city. He referred to the traffic sltuatlon~ making a ieft-hand tur~ off Simmons across Hester~ r~hich Is four lanes, with people going to the stores in that area and stated it would be a terrible traffic probiem and patnted out the peoplc ir, the apartmPnts two blocks up go +:o the same markets. Dr. foster indicated he did not unde~stand the mathematics which prove the traff(c count would be decreased by adding 34 units. He stated he dld not disputc Mr. Clow's right to develop his property~ but that he did dispute h{s riyht to develop it tf it decrt~~6ed the velue of his land and the security of his home ahlch he had bought before Mr. Cl,~w owned his property. He was concerned and d(d not want anyone to be deluded that the proposed development is a response to a community need for high density restdentlal unlts; that he felt the p~oposal is solely ~o make maximum profit for Mr. Cirw. Mr. Rowland indicated the calculatians regarding th~ traffic were taken from the staff's calculati~ns; that the estimated daily traffic trips were 600 for low de~sity residential~ and that go(ng to Exhibit D and t~king Lhe total number of units and using a proportlonate equbtlon~ the arithmetic was precise. Ne indicated he was not e philosopher but a~ architect and plan~er~ and that living in Orange Councy for mc~st of his adult 11fe he has been exposed to the principle af private enterprise and finds it ccxnforting. Ne believed if these tawnhouses are built~ they will be ln response to a community need~ and if there is no community need which is evidenced by the willingness to purchase and live tn these units, then they will not be built. He stated that deveiopment of these townhouses would not reduce the value ~f the houses of anyone living tn the area; that the federal money p~ograms preclude anyone losing a dirne on any real property; that the value is going to gn up whether th~y do anything to thzi~ property or not; and ehat the marketptace will establish whether there is a community need for this type housing. 3i9i~s MINUTES~ ANANEIM CItY PLANNING ~OMMISSION~ M~rch 9~ 1978 78-1~3 ~!R N0. 212 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO_ 1W5 (contsnued) Ms. titndman Indicated the resldents had done thelr own trafftc study from June 17 at 6:00 a.m. through June 18 at G:00 p.m. ln front of Mr. Clow's property end that 2~1A0 vehlcles had crossed the strcet during that particular time~ end she felt that should answor any questlons rega~dtng the traffic. She st~ted~ oyaln~ that half of ttie poople tn opposltion did not recelve a copy of the qu~stt4nnatrE so the results of the questionnaire are Ineccurate rnd incomplete. She potnted out that Mr. Clow has owncd tf~e property for a long tlr-~ and thet she works ln plenniny with the rolice Department ond Mr. Clow Is Indlcating tl~ese houses are golna to be butlt f~r S80 per square foot~ wl~ich Is out of ~angc sln~c hc. owns the property~ and that he says it is imposstble to build single~family hames in this ~rea~ yet Mr. Netty who was ~apres~ntl~y the opposition had presented a plan to the City Counc(1 indtcating single-f'amily hon~s cauld bc built~ and that the Ctty ~ouncil had dgreed. She stated~ again~ that 7200-square foot l~ts wauld work; that they presently have everythtnq from 5000-square foot lots to one-half a.re lots, Mr. Floyd Farano~ repr~senLing Mr. and Mrs. Clow~ ind(cated hlc ~os~tlon would be different; that the Planning Comnisslon has been talking ~bout theory a~d what could be don~ and what they would llke to sce dane~ but that he would like t~ talk about practical(ties; that the ~xhiblts as presented are predtcated upon an assumptlon that the land ca~ be corr~ined and subdivided in a way that might be consistent. He indicated the report states that three owners indicatad they would be favorable to combining their propertles~ but that hc did not knaw who these owners were and wlicther or not thetr land surrouncfs Mr. Clow's property. fle pointed out the facts are tha~t this property is shaped in a very unusua) manner and that it cannot be developed in the way which has been suygested t~nd unti! such tlm~ as 3aneone does physically combine the ownerships of the land, the exhibits as presented by the Planning steff are "pie in the sky d~eams"~ but not reallty. He indicated that netther he nor Mr, Rowland had seen Mr. Netty's plan; that they had heard a lot about it and that he had asked Mr. Metty to send a copy uf the plan to him~ but tha[ the pl~n has never been received~ therefore~ he would like to requesC tha Planning Commissfon to ~ontlnue this item and instruct staff to prepare an exhibit showing haw the property could t~e developed as suggested, tak(ng into consideration the legal ownerships and the way lt is subdivtded at the present tirne; that th~y would Iike to se:e h a,r saneone is gotng to treat a piece of property shaped In this manner; and that he was not saying it could not be d~~e, but that they would like to see the proposal and would invite Mr. Netty to send a copy to them so that xhey can study (t. He indicated that Mr. Cloav has trled to buy another ~iece uf property. Cammissloner Johnson indieated he felt some of the confuslon rega~dtng the mathemattca) wizardry was concerning the square footage and asked the square footage of Mr. Claw's property~ w(th Mr. Rowland reply(ng it is 3.9 acres~ and Commissioner Johnson expl~ined they were calculating that ftgure agalnst the RS-40A0 development standards. He pofnted out the Gity is dealtng with thc entire 5.8 acres. He pointcd out to Dr. Foster that Mr. Flawland was only talking about Mr. Clow's propcrty of 3•9 acres. CNAIRMMI PRO TEMPORE HERBST Cl~'SEd THE PUBLIC HEARING ~N THIS PORTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. He indicated the pruperry owner has requesteJ a continuance with reference to the stngle-famlly, RS-7200 development until the Froponents can produc~ a plan that can be developed~ and he did not feel this request was out of line. A gentleman from the audience stated thAt Mr. Claw could delay thls forever and that this has been going on for nfne menths; that the opposition has to work and it ts difftcult to come to these meetings. 3/9/78 ~ MINUTk~~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ March 9~ 1~78 78'124 EIR H0. 212 ANO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMEN~ N0. 145 (continued) Chainnan Pro Tertpor. Herbst Indicated thst he realized the opposition has their rights but that the property avner also hAS r~is rights, a~d that they are in disagreemant. and that ho could soe the probiem of developiny thts property thc way the opposition wants ik developed; that the propcrty must ba developed in the best manner~ end It ts not gaing to be a one-way street. Comml~sloner Barnes io~dlc~ted she h~d vated ag~lnst Mr Rowland's proJect end she thought a lot of people had misunderstood why. She indtcated S~~o N~s not absol~tely ~ositive at that time thet che proposal was not tha best thing and she reallzed that everybody w~nts single-famlly JwPllinys. Sha want~d conslderat{o~ yiven to the (mpact that singlo-famlly homes would have a~ oppased to absolutely na homes nnd potnted out if th~re was no access, and if you could not se~ any liomes there would be no homes on thet street. She indlcated she was concerned about the choices pr~sentcd; that thny really do not :eke ~ntu consideratlo~ the configuration of Mr. Clow's property~ an~f tl~at none of tt~e plans seemed to fit khe situAtfon and she would Ilke staff to present a plan which doE take into c;onsidnratlon the conflguratio~ of the property~ a,~d she would be tn fav~r of r continuance. 5he stete~f she reallzed cominy d.~wn to the r~ee~.li~gs time after time~ ts really a dray, but tl~+~t in this case~ especlally~ she would like Mr. Rowland and Mr. Smith to see the plan the oprosition has ccxnc up wlch for single-family developrt~ent; thAt maybe they ci~ havo a plan that wtll Nork and she fclt the Commissinn should see it~ and she would iike to move f~r a conttnuance. Jack ~lhite~ Deputy City Attorney~ polnted out that tF~re is ~o datc set for thc next General Plan amendmen*_ and that the Planni~g Commissi~n has the opportun(cy to terminaCe thls pro~eeding and renr~tice it, which the staff would probably prefer~ s4 that they could br~ng the plan ba~l: at an earlier date~ but felt thet a c~nii^uance would have to i.e so far in advance that it wc+uld be a ci{sse~vtce [o both sides. Coenntssioner Barnes indic,~~ed st~e felt the ~ppositi~~n shnuld want the matter continued as long as possible sinc~ it c~~nnc~t be developed ~s long as it fs betng cantinued. Chelrman P~o Temp~re He~bst ind~cated he did nor. thtnk this property c~uld be dev~loped with single-famlly homes but tl~at tf the oppositl~n does have a plan, he would ltke to see it; that the p~operty has been vacant for 12 years and tl~at whatever is developed ts going ta be permanent~ a~d he wantcd it to be dnne right. M~. Schwartze indicated t~zat the staff I~as provideci six of an inflnite number of alternatives and *.hat (f it is che Commiss(on's desire~ they can provide any n~~ber of alternatlves; that they couid take the Nroperty conf(guratlons (nto consideratlon~ but since the General Plan is ?ust a conceRt and a guideline they had not done that~ but kould k~e happy to if that is the Commisslan's desire. Chalrman Pro Tsmpore Herbst indicated tie was interesced in seciny what would hapeen to Mountein View Ave~ue and the traffic ln the area if single-famtly homes were devalaped; that there are a iof of other things involved and that the development between stngle- faMi ly and tawnhouses could rt-eke a dtfference reyarding Lhe recreatton facll lties~ Inpact on the parks~ ~tc. Ms. Hindman ~~dicated her concern ihat th~re are three other properttes wtthin th~ area and that there (s o!ot of acreage~ and that I~r. Claw has attempted to buy thos~ lots a~d she was concerned what woutd happen if he was s~~ccessful and felt that with 600 ~0 800 more Tamllies tn thc area~ it would be ~ terriflc impact ~n th~ir area. Dr. Foster tndicated he h ad a difficult time understanding the mentality which assurt+es that sumetlmc along the way the ~ules can be changed and that a piece of proae~ty can b~ 3~ 9/7~ i MIWUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Merch 9~ 1978 78-125 EIR N0. 212 AND G_ ENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0~ 145 (contlnued) developed by a de velope~ and the ~elyhborhood can be sacrtficed for a p~ofit because somebody has enough maney tu buy up the vacant land and develop it. Chalrmen Pra Te mporn Herbst potnted out thst the propercy ow~er has property whtch hes been designated on the Generel Plan f~r medlum density and that the rules a~e being ehanged~ that thn de~stty is being lc~ve~ed. whicli wi ll affect the property ow~er much mure thsn the oppositlon; that he has owned that property under medlum density on the General Plan and now the density Is being droppcd and tl~e apposttion feels thelr riqhts are being interfered with , but that~ In realtty, thn property owner's ~Ights ere being interfered wtth~ and that is the reason the Planninq Comml~sion is epproachi~g thfs situetlon with ca~tic+n. He pointed out that us{ng RM-4000 standards which would allow 8 unlts to tl~e ac~e (s very close to what woulcl be allowed under RS-5A00 development. Dr. Foster aske d et what time tn htstory this zoning was approved fo~ multiple-family~ and :.halrman Pro ~emporc H~rbst pc~ln~.ed out the Genrrel Plan was approved In 1~6~; that thc property is no t zo~ed mulLiple-'amilY~ it is zoned RS-A-43~OOQ wtilch is a hnlding zone~ but that 1 t t s on the Genersl Pl An fUr med i um dens i ty. L'r. Foster indieat~d this pl~n wns adApted ditcr naat of the people In the area had bou,yht and moved into their houses and -~e believed Mr. Ra+land was the Chairman of the Planning Commiss~..:: r~hsn the General Pla~ was approved~ and Chai rman Pro Tertp~re Herbst rcp) tecl this w as true a nd that he hod served with Mr. Rowland qultc a few years. There was a res ponse from the audtence asking tf thls was not a conflttt of interest. Commissloner Linn asked if the exh(blt which the Planning Uepartment would be working on would assume no vartances, and Ron Smi th polnted nut that th~s e!chibit would be more specific than a Ganeral Plan concept, Cummissianer J ohns~n (ndicated he did not pa~ti_ulerly wa~t Ln conttnue this item, but that i t Just about has tc, be terminated unless i t cen be b~•ought back in a short time. Commi~sloner Sarnes encour,y~ d the people present in opposl t(on to bring in the plan whtch has been d i scussed for the s taf f to rev l ~w+. Commissionnr J ohnson indic~ted he was ayainst te*mineti~g this actton; that he could understaRd th e feelin~~s but felt itwas a hesitancy on tha part of the Commission and that they were looki ng for a way out of a ~ii ff icul t si tuation, a~d he fcl t the ptan discuc«d was j us t hearsby. Cr~mmiss!:~er N ~ rbst indicated he is in favor of the termination in v-ew of the fact .he aroperty owner is wi 11 ing to look at the plan. Janses Thies tndlcate~~ he wished to clarify the sa-called "plan' t>eing dtscussed; that ttie plan had been drawn by Mr, Netty whn i; tha lawyer and was speerl~~eading the appositlon; that tt was just r simple, squared-out plan showin~ r single-famllY deveiopment with the proper streets dra~rn in to shaw t~iat a ~.)an coula c~ devalaped for that area~ end that an enginenr could d•~ a better p1An; that this was stmply to shaw the Cauncil that it could be dona and that any cievelopmant wuuld increase the tr~ffic; that the residents in this area want singie-family dwellings~ not Just a few families but the wheie irea; that lt was thelr feeling they are overflooded with ~partments and they want to kcep the ctty single- fami ly r~sident(al so that they coul ' vlsi t~~i th their netghbors across the Street and not be separate, Nal l ed- i n~ 1 I t Zle ca.nr . ~~s and that i s what they are tryf ng to say and i~ave been trying t~ say fer rine mortths but nobody secros to want to listen. Nr indtcaYed hc was not su~e how tl~e plan had been drawn~ 3/9/78 MINUTCS~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Merch 9~ 1978 78-126 EIR N0. 212 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENOMENT N0. 145 (continued) Chalrrnan P~o Tempore Herbst polnted out that the confiqu~atton of the proparty has to be co~sidered tn hav (t ts going to ba developad~ ~~• t~e wouid like to see Mr. Netty's plan. ACTION; Chalrm~n Prn Tempore Horbst pointed out there waa a motion n~,de by Commisstoner t3a~rn to terminate tne proJGCt~ snd Commissianer Linn snconcied the rrntion ~nd MOTION CARRIED (Chairman Tolar bcing abscnt and Commissloners Johnson and David vot'ng no)~ to terminate ArQa I from Genaral Plan Amandmc:nt No. 1~~5. Mr. Schwartze polnted out the Plannfng C~mmisslon's actfon is merely a recommendatlon to the City Gounci I . AREA II - EAST SIDE OF STATE COLLEGE BOUL VARD GENEMLI.Y SOUTN OF VIKING AVENUE. Ron Smith presentod this portlon of the steff report and ex~latned this request (s to evaluate che current des(gnatlon of low density resldenttal on the General Plan rnd was inlt(atad by the City Council whfle considcring Variance No. 276n (uses and stgntng). SubJect propPrty is currently zoned RS-7200 an~ devel~ped as single-famtly residenttal; 20 individual lot5 encan~ass E~000 square f~et each cuvering 2.49 acres; vehtculor accoss is v(a a 20-foot alleyway at thr. rear of the lots. Statc Cuitege Boulevard Is deslgnated a prlmary street end presently tarries approxtmately ?.3~0~0 vehlc'es a day. In July of 196J~ a study wes prepared on the probiem of resldential homes fronttng on arterial highways. The crlteria developed at that time dtd not propose this area of State Cotlege Bouldverd to convert to commerctal uses. Three land use alternattves were presented: Exhlbit A- essumes the conversion of existing singlc-family restdentlal homes to cammerctal actlvlties. If {mplement~d~ this wauid mean access po(nts onto State College B~uicvard would occur. Exhlbit D- law-medium (lf3 units per gross acre) on 2.49 acres. Th(s would allow for ~ental units un the rear of existing lots should zone reclasslftcAtions be approved at a later date. Lots a~e designed end bullt with single-family resldenttal setbacks and parkfng could ber.ome a probiem upon implcmentatlon. Exh(bit G- commercial office and prafesstonal. This allaws for offices to be built or converted. Office-Professional zoning usually allows for dental, doctflr~ real estate and accountant type uses. It would mean thc conversion of single-family homes ta these uses. There havc been previous conversions handled on an individual basis~ depending upon lot dc~th~ width and coverayc. Mr. Smith explained a questlonnaire ha~ been sent to ij6 legGl property owners~ raquesting input. Of 67 returns received, it was notod 4; desired single-family homes~ lB prefe-•red p rofcsslanal offices, 6 cammercial u-es. and 3 prtferred apartments or rental units. Eight property owners indicated a desire to cn~~~bine their lots w(th a neighbo~ for elthe~ cormiercla) p rofessional or rental units. According to the Orange County Assessor racords, of the 20 lats encompassing the subject p~operty, 7 are ~bse~~tee landowners and 13 indlcatc mailtng addresses on che praperry. A serles of graphlcai rapresenLations af inethods that could be utilized to scre~n the homes fronting on State Coliege Boulevard h~as presented. It was note~i a revlew of the Environmental Impact Report for thEs area revealed adequate publf~ faclltties e~e availa le to continue servicing the sub,ject site under any of the a 1 ternat I ves . 3/9/78 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PL.ANNI~~G COMMISSION, March 9~ 1978 78'127 EIR N0. 212 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENpMENT N0. 145 (continued) Wille Rush~ 211Q East Vnrmnnt Avenue~ Anah eim~ asked that the people present tn opposltlon be counted~ ar~d Mr. 5mtth tndicated there were approximat~ly 57 parsons tn attnndance. Mr. Rush IndicatQd that they were opposed to all three alt~rnativea sn d prese~tGd a petitlon slyned by approximetaly 133 residents opposing all three alternatives. Ile statod the quest~~nnaira results shownd the maJor~ty of the people ilving in the area like the area t'~e way It ls because of tta convenies~ce Co thei- work~ to the s!.opping centers~ c~,..~cl as~ schools and the park~ and felt i f che aroa were al lowed to be rezo~ed tra~ffic whlch is alraady heavy would be worse. H e lndicated the plans state that parktng must bo in thR ~ear ~f these lots and pai~ted out the arca between Rescda and State Collene on lhe north and south ends are dead-ends which does not ellc~w mucl~ room for turning around for trafflc to get out of thc ArPa~ and tha people on aeseda are qolnq to be paying for the people on State College to have commerc~~l uses; that there is barcly enough room now for people to get out of thctr garagGS. Hc indicatad the r•esldents were c~nc~rn~~ wtth oir pollutlan and the rlse in crime (f this re zoning is epproved. He pointed out th~re erd othcr areas north of State Col leye and other areas of Anahcim where peopl~ who want to use this p~operty for cortxnercial would have pl aces Ci~at. ere a) ready zon~d that are not being used. He referred to Srookhurst Strcet~ and indicated they did not want State College to look ltke ~rookhurst Street. Fred Missel~ 969 Cedarwood Lane, rcpresen ting 85 Anahcim Gardens Nomeowi~ers ~ssoclation members~ w~ich ls located approxirnately at the corner of Wagner Aven ue and State Callege Boulevard, 1 ndi ct+te~ they were opposed to the praJect dnd the three a 1 ternati ves prepared for four basic reasons: 1) traffic, 2) parking~ 3) h ~th~ and ~i) a~sthetlcs. He indiceted the Anaheim Gerdens home~wners wauld be impacted by the re zoning, and ag far as the traffic is concerned~ they are nestle d between the Methadist Chu r ch~ Katella Migh School~ boysen Park~ publtc tennis courts , and various L1•mentary an d Junior high schoals, and they are o•ery heavlly impa~cted already and there is a history of trafftc accidents ln the area. He referred to a~~ew traffic 1 ight at Wagner and S[ate Col leye. Ne stated the traffic flow is heavy on Statc College al~ eady and if the Rams came to AnaheTm, the traffic flow would be triplsd and referrp d to the Angel bes~ball games and now the Qrange Surf Soccer League which wlli increase trafric. He stated they have a problem wlth people cutting th~ouyh their complex and tliat sin ce the light was ~ut In, ~eople cut behind their complex to avoid the l iqht a~d that they hav~e put in speed bumps and the bumps had cost 5500; that because of the he~vy traffic th ey have had to repave the streets nhead of schedule, which cost another S2~Q0(~. He pc~sed the question that Hith the possible development of more units and commercial use with more traffic, would ±heir association have to pay the cost of repaving and nwin taining the streets. Concerning the parking situation~ he indicate d they have approximately 34 parking spaces allowed for their compl~x~ 10 of which a r e reserved for recreat(onal vehicles~ and that many of the homeowners have more than two cars and many usc tlie(r gar~ges fo~ storage so there ~s not always $4 parkinca spaces avallable. He stated with their lncation tn close pr4~Imity to Baysen Park~ Katella High S e hool, and the tennis courts~ they have a severe parking problrm now; that the ovcrflow from the park and the school with dav and night classQS~ comes into their complex to park and it is a tremendous problem. He .tated they have had situations where people oark in alleyways and accesses~ ca using a pr~blem fur emergency vehicles and ¢elk that people wi 11 perk where It is convenient for commercial devel<~~~ment~ not rccessarlly in the rea r. and the problem will be s e vere. Mr. Missel indicated there is a safety factor involved when there is a saftball game and people park on State College. He felt the re zonin~ w~uld add parkin g and invit~ ~nore possibility of traffic accidents. Ne in ditated, also, Lhere is a s afety factor with people cutting through their complex; th at lamps~ sprinkler heads a ~d grass have been destroyed; that they have put boulders a~ound the area so that peop{e cannot cut into the 3i9i~a MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ March 9~ 19 7 8 78-12$ EIR N0. 212 AND GE~~ERAL PLAN AMENOMENT _N0._ 14Z (concinu~d) ~~~: that there have been some ctose calls with pedestrl~~ns with cars comli~g through . complex to bypass the bumps. He stated the:re are other health consideratlons with increased tr~sh which would tause an tnc~aase (n Ins~cts and rodents; that thelr area is kept nice but they are sfratd thare wlll be a trash problem~ end that the homeowners assocl~tlon ls responstblo far clean-up and the homeown~rs have t~~ pay for It. Ne refer~ed to aesthetic problams wlth nol e~ trash~ demege to trees and shrubbery~ and broken glass~ and the problem wlth graffiti nn the slumpstone ws)ls; thet the walls could be damaged an~i the ass~ctation has tA pay for the ~ama g~ anci the City wlll not be responsible because It ts private property; and that F,e felt Exhibitt A~ ~ and C would allew far pnor deslyning of a commercla) araa. He referred to tht davelopments In the i00 and ~0 blocks of Brookhurst and indicoted they are ru~ dow~; that they have talked with residents ' ehind those complexes~ who say they have traffic~ nolse a~d trash problems~ and referrad ~o the 500 block on State Colleg~ wtth a s(;nilar sltuation where shopping has been ollowod and impacted the area. F1e fndicated they had lookQd in~o t'~~• Genera) Plan when they had bought Into thts area and were afrald th e t if Plans A~ B c• C go tnto effect~ the area wil) be edversely tmpacted. He state d they wished to w~rk with the P1~nning Cormmisslon to find an equttable solutlon, Chatrman Pro Temporc Herbst po{nted out that Brookhurs t Is not the responslb(lity ^f A~~ehelm; that most of those properties were developed whlle; that property was sttll in the County. Commissioner Johnson Indicated he had ~'~terruptedMr. Missel because he felt he hs~! losk track of the fact tl~at the P 1 ann i ng Commi ss ion Is cans i der i ng seven i tems and part of h( s pruJect ls 2~00' to 3,OOU feet nway fram this property and abuts the praperty an a very small scale, a~d most of the evidence can,ot impact the property being conside red; that his po(nts were Well teken and the Planning Cortmisslon had liste~ed. Conxnlsstoner ~;tng asked if a change wauld vlolate the deed restrictions. and Mr. Whtte indicated deed restrictlons are not to be considered in the Planning Commisston's delibe~ations since they do not irvolve the City and c a ~ be changed at any time without the approva) o~ consent of thc Cfty. He indtcated th a t if the General Plan Amenciment and rezoning arN approved that would allc~w development not i~ conformity with the dee~ restrictions~ the deed restrictions woutd still apply a~d the hrxneowners, through c1vI1 actlon~ could try to enforce them. He statcd the Plann iny C~rm~lsslon or the C iCy Counci l could nat vtew dsed restrictions as a reason for yran ting or denying a proJect. H. L. Milliga~, 95~ Pearwood lane~ A~aheim Gardens~ in dicated he wfshed to speak in fav~r of fhe AnahPim General Plan~ partfcularly regarding sin ~le-family residentfal areas in this general neighborhood and to speak for the Commiss Ton's policy to encourge the preservation of single-family residential zoni~~y In this area; that there is g enerally a shortage of hc~mes in this area and this glves tha Plan ning Commission the oppartuntty to support thetr pol{cy and try cu maintain single-fam(ly residences. Mr. Milligan referred to the crit~ria used for c,~anging residenttal structures to comrt~ercial ~ one deal ing wi th the cur~ent use of the ad j acent a~ea and whether t t Is develope'. He pointed out the area in q~estion and a d jacent area is built up with single- famlJy ce.idenees or something like AnaF~eim Gardens campletely ~urrounding it. and that with regard to the second criteria concerning the proxim(ty of two intersecting arrerials, he pointea out this area -is approximately hal fway betwaen Chro arteriais. Ne stated that between this prnperty and the Intersection of Ball there is no comrtarcial zoning; that 3t 1s parks, reside~t(al or chu~ches. The thl~d criteria concerns the parGtl size and front yard depth and the re i s certa i n ly not e great dea 1 of f ro~ t yard c. apth ~ end the fourth crlteria deals with generous parkway screening and la ~ dscaping~ he was not su~e what is meant by "generous" but did not Teel there was sufficient ~rea tn the f~ont. He pointed 3/9/78 MINUTES~ ANAH[IM CITY P U',NNING COMMISSION~ March 9~ 1978 78-129 EI~ N0. 212 11ND GF.NERAL PLA4 AMENOMENT N0. 14S (cnnttnued) out thet a requeat for rezoning south of Verm~nt to Anahc~im Gardens from single~-fam(ly res i den t l a l to com ~e -c l a l was den l ed I n 1969 end a l so i n 19 ~E~ was den i ed ~ and he hoped t' e Planning Commisslan would b~ consistent and support their own point of v(ow. Douglas Merks~ 879 South Reseda~ A~ahelm~ indtcated he wes opposed to thc plan betause of the Increased trafftc that might occur In the aileyway. He Indicated hts backyard fence ht~d be~:n knocked down and tt cost S600 to replace~ and he fe.lt with more trafftc~ more damage would be done. Ne polntcd out there have heen fau~ fires in that alley causec by people thrawing ~igaret:es~ etc.; thaC tFie trasli is picke~ ~p In the Al1ey and w!th tncreased trafflc, he ~'elt lt wauld ba an increased hazard for fires; and thac wlth the school~ in the area end increased traffic, he did not feel the parents would a{fprec(~te the children walking to school wtth more cars i~ the alley. Cancerning the nolse~ he indtcated that 1(ving near an alleyway, even with the qutetezt cars there wuuld be an increese In nolse~ also there are parking pr~~blems with bellgames ond tlie traffic parking in the alley. i~e indicated he was alr,iost htt twice recently pulling out of hts own driveway and did not feel this area could handle businesses. He presenced a petition slgnecl by approxirnately 94 ~es(Jents opposJng the change. C. R. Wright~ 9i1 Cedarwood Lane, Anaheim, stated that Comnissloner Johnson hoJ indlcated most af the people at Anat~cim Gardens Iive as far as 2~OQ0 or 3~noo feet away; that each of them owns a part of the grcenbelt area and the wells and tt~ey take care of their own repalrs; that their homes are n~t apartments; ~hat they are selling in excess ~f $72~OQ0 and each persan owns 1/d5th of the area up to the wall~ and that everyone is cancerned with the ex~enses they have becn goiny ;hrouyh. He osked when d questionnatre is s~nt out to the nel~hbors withir, 3(1n feet, that one be sent to their baard of d(rectors beca~~se they all awn that prope.rty and the wail~ and that is the wall tha[ is 9olny t~ be kr,ocked down and they are going to havc to ~ay For it. Mon te Hazza rd ~?.102 Napa P 1 ace ~ llnat~e i m, i nd i ca ted he had r,x~ved to Anahe I m t n 19A2 and h. .! grown up in the area of Llncoln and State College and had playcd in thc orange gr~••es wh~re Disneyland is now and had hunted Jackrabbits on the property being discussed. He indicattd he had bought his home (n a neighborhaod area ~n~ would like to see it stay a neighborhood area; that he would like to stay in the ~city the rest of his life; and that Reseda Street is dangerous now and tc, put businesses on the street wou!d increase the amaunt of traf'ic that 1~ already there. Lots Claassen, 2032 Blackwood Lane, Anaheim Gardens~ indi~ated they Nere one of the threc places chosen for " M aheim Beautiful" and that the residents af Anaheim Gardens are concerned how their property will be affected. Commissioner Barnes indEcated the petitian had signatures of nine different addresses on State College and asked if there wss anyone in the audience who lived on thr propCrty 'being discussed~ and there was no response. Bill Ehrle~ 1050 Baxter Street. Anaheim, pointed out he was co-a+ner of property at 838 South State College Boulevard and that this property has been before the Planning Commisston and the City Council several times tn the aast~ finally leading up to this hearing io make a decision on a block; that he realized that block affects tho~.e r~sidents present in oppositlon~ but that the discussion is really dealing with an enttre block. Ne stated this is a geographical area fronting on a maJor street in Anaheim with approximaCely 23~000 cars per day; that he is selling his residence as a single-famlly residence. He stated h~ was not speaking as a pers~~n trying to qet an office space but as a property owner and long-tim• resident of Anahpim~ and alsc ~ persnn wfio is very aware of what 15 happening on State College Boutevard and what is going to happen in the future, He polnted out that in 1969 when the first area study was ~iane, there w~~e no co~mercia) 3!9/7a MIMUTES~ ANAHEIN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ March 9~ 1978 78-130 EIR N0. 212 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 145 (continued) estoblisliments; that those thinys have happened In the last eiyht or ntne ye~rs; thst this is a coi~tinually changing street and he ho~~sd the Pl~nntng Commission would con ider what is best foi~ the front af 5tate Collego in the future. Ne polnted out he reelic:s it does sffect the residencos bel~tnd tt~ but thpre ts also an alleyway a~d ways of havinq na~ural barrlers and ways to prevent ~•her properties from converting. He indicated he had not submittad ane of the questlonnai-~s. 11e stated he was interestGd in those 1$ persons who live tn the residential area pnd felc commercial office use should be allowed~ and the otlicr six who felt it was wortt~y of cumn~rcial use. tie stated~ evtdently~ the silent maJor(ty is apeakin~ anJ uryed the Cornnly5lon to laok at tl~e area sincr the problcm is not galn~ away; that he fclt (t could be al'eviated if a firm hold (s taken and the Commission says th~s is what they recommend~ anc;l~e telk it was e commerclel street. TIiE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEO ON THiS PORTION OF THE HEARING. Commissfane~ Johnson stated he felc idealogi~Ally Mr ~hrle was rlc~ht; t~:4t p~rha~s khls property should b~ cammerctal, that it looked commcrcial and there is carnn~erclal down the street, but he felt the timiny is not right for this amcndment and falt tiiat to make one narrow strip alu~~~ State College commercial wc~uld not be proper; rhat we are going through an sra when residences are hard to come 'oy 8nd commercial spece is plentlful; that rnaybe in ten years th~ picture w111 be dtffere.nt; that the Commisston has tAlked about strip commerciel and he felt the irr~ act. on the residences to the east woul.f be too great; and that he wa, aware the people living in those !:omes are the ones who would be aftected most and rot those present in oppositio~. ACTION: Comm(ssio~er :ol~nson offered a motion~ seconded by Gomni~sioner Llnn and MOTION ~0 UNANIMOUSLY (Ct~airman Tolar bein~ absent)~ that the Anat,:im City Planning Cummissian does hereby recommend to t!~e Clty Cnuncil that that evidence presented does not warrent a necd to amend the General Plan for ttiac area on the east side of State Coltege ~oulevard~ qen~rally south af Viking Avenue~ identifled as Area II. Commissloner Linn polnted out he Felc this property was unfque~ but that he was concerned about the nai-row alley and thot those people on tl~ie east side of the alley would not have another access, 11e referred to the L(ttle League field and the problems with parking~ etc. , and stated tt~ i s was a congesteci are.i, Commissioner Nerbst indicated ne felt one point had been missed; that there had be~n talk about the ..lley and people backtng out of the homes facinc~ on Reseda; that he hAd driven down the alley betwsen Ve rmont and Viking and the two corner houses were the only two who use the alley for access. Commissioner Barnes poi~ted out that the people generally affected by tl~e change are not present and~ cherefore~ she was assuming they were not inte~ested in whlch vray the decision gc-es. Ch~trman Pro Tempcre Herbst indicated he agre~d with Mr. Ehrle, that al some point ii~ time as StaLe Colleye gets more traffic~ those houses would not be livable as chey are today and that they will have the right tn ask for convcrslon; that even though we Nlart to keep it as it is today, that would not preclude anyone coming in and askiny for reclassification. He staxed he felt we would be facing this problem agatn and aqas~i, but that he agrec~ the ttming was no~ right for the amendment at this tim~:. Mr. Smith clarified that ti~e Plarning Cortmission wished to recommend that the low d~nsiLy designation be retained nn the General Plan. 319/7~ MINUTES~ ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMNISSION~ March 9. 1978 E I R N0. 212 AND GENEML PLAN AMENDMEN7 N0. 145. (c~~ntl nued) 78-131 Chalrman Pro Tarnpnre N~srbst referred to tl~e ex~tblts pr~~Qnted by the staff for sound buffer traatmente fo~ tf~e propertiPS on State Cotlege and recorm+~nded that If the restdential nature (s to be retalned~ those peo{~ie should mak~ usc of these plans. RE' S There was a five-minute recess et 9:10 p.m, RECONVENE The meetin9 reconvened at 9:15 p.m. ARCA I11 - NORTfiCAST OF HIIRBOR BOULEVARD ANp CNAPhtA11 AVENUE. Ttifs request to amend the cur~ent desiy~,atton of general commerctal was received itom severa) of the property owners. It has been rcquested to cvaluate the potenttal for medtum dRns(ty residential on internal portions of the sl~e~ wtth commerctal on the frontages of Harbor Boulevard end Chapman Avcnue. The property Is pred~minantly zoneJ genera) cortwnerc(ai and encompasses epproxlmat~ly 40 acress. A smal) strip frontfng on Narbor Is zoned parking/landscape district-m~nufacturing and thP northwest corner is zoned heavy comme~ctal. A series of nine alternatives has been p;epared for a mlxture of uses along Narbor and Chapman to be evaluated and the tntroduction of commerclal o~flce uses onto the site. Exhihit A- existing general commercial on 1G.1£3 acres; lowr-medtum density (up to 18 units per gross acre) on ~4.~~ acres. This exhihik recognizes comn~ercia) uses along Narbor and Chapman~ with potential for RM-400C~ zoning adJacent~ whlch pr~vides a transition into the ex~~cing single-famlly uses ~along Oertley Drlve. Exhibit B- a minor mc~dification to Exhihit A, with the frontaqe along Ctiapman designed low- medium to allow development in a continuous manner and ad}acent for access purposes to Chapman. Exh:,(t C- ex(st(ng g~neral commertial on 16.1~ acres; meclium density residentlal (up tu 36 unlts per yr~ss acre) on 2~~.;1 ac:~es. Th(s permits cammercial along Narbor and Chapman, with medium density ad_)acent. Gtnerally~ rnldt~un density is an apartment or RM-12~) zaned use upon implementation of the General Plan~ and the 150-faut~ ane-sto ry restri:ilon wc,uld apply on tie partion adjacent to the existing single-family homes. Exhibit D- existing qeneral ccxnmercia) on 13.7.2 acres; comne~cial professtona) on 9.2; ac~ps; and medium density residential (up to 36 units per gross acre) on 18.62 acres. Th~y ~llows for a tr•ansftion of uses from comnercial to office professtonal and finally medium density. The height rescrictton would apply to the existing single-famtly iiomes. Exhtbit E- essantially a minor mo~ification to Exhibit C~ wit„ medium density shown on Chapman, replacing commercial adjacent to the City of Garden Grove. Exhibit F- existing general cqmmercial on 6.69 3cres; medium density rasidentlal (up to 36 units per gross acre) on 22.49 acres; iow denslty residentlal ;up to 7 units per yross ecre) on 11.91 acres. Exccpt for existing commercial uscs~ frontages on Harbor and Chap~ran are shown in me~ium density residential, with 1'.91 acres of la~- dt~sity adjacent to existing single-fa~rily homes. This would allow for single-family homes to be built in concert with the existing pt tern of low d~nsity and t~ansitioning upward to medium denslty. Exhibit G~ existing general ccmme~cial on 6.01 ac~es; commercial professional an 23.17 acres; low density residentlal (u~ to 7 units per gross acre) on 11.91 acres. This exhibi t recoynizes exTstir~g cortr~~ercial uses on Narbor. The ~e~s.~inder of Har~ or 3/9/78 a~ MINUTES~ ANAN~IM CITY PLANNING GOMMIS510H~ Nsrch ~~ 1~7n ]A-132 EIR N0. 212 AND GENERAL PLAN l~MENDMENT N0. 14y (continuod) _.. _. ~.. _ ~.... ~. . ... and Chapman f~onteye is deslgnated commercla) professtanal~ with low density adJacent [o exlsting developed single-Pamily residences. Exhibit N- exl~ting general comrnercial ~n 1G.18 acres; medium denstty residenttal (~~p to 36 units per gross ecre) on 1~.96 acres; low dens(ty restdent(al (up t~ 7 units per gross atre) on 11.q1 acr~s. This proposal is simtlar to Exhib(t F except the frontage along I~arbor is si~awn for commercial. The law density destgnation is adJ~cent to existtng single-famlly to aliow for continulty. Exhibit I• ex(st(ng commercial an 16.1~; acres; low density restdent(al (up to 7 units per gross acre) on 2N.91 acres. This exhiblt proposes to mainte+in the existing commerclal along Harhor and Chapman~ with low dcnsity on the remainder of the site. Mr. Smlth explained a citizen~resident survey was malled to l0y residents. Twenty-five rasponses w~re receivecl~ 1-+ favored commercial storr.q/c,fftc~s; 9 favored stnqle-~amily homes; end 2 favored single-fan~i ly homes wl th separate ren'.. . untts. The site encompass~s 41.0~ acres~ which is 2$ of the total c~mmercial land use acreagt tn the City of Anaheim end encompASSes 5~ of the 8:f0 acres of Just the retail sales and servlces fn the city. Thc Chief auilding Inspector (nd(cates the old White Front store currently ~n e p~~rtlon of the site has been vandaltzed on several occASions in rec~ent years and seGUrity Is a prablem, A rF~quest for a park site evaluatton on a portton of the site (7 acres northr.ast sector of the area) has been referred to the Parks and Recreation Department. An initial ~valuation resulted in a concern over financtng of tl~ p~rk. Evaluation of the potential funding sources iS under review. The City of Garde~ Grove General Plan Land Use Element indicates commercial for the vicinity of the intersectlon of Harbor 8oulevard and Charman Avenue and medium density to the east ~f subJect property. A cortxnercial-rACreativn designation for tl~e site was not presented since exiensive land (1~0+ acreSl ls sttll avatlahle. Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst inyuired about the existin~ cortxnercial establishments, and Mr. Smith replied it Is his understandiny tl~c~se busine~-ss are under a long-term lease and they would rema(n reyardless of wliat (s nroposed, Commissioner Linn asked about a rumor that che Garden Grove Community Church is going to acquire that praperty or a portion of tfiat prorerty for a youth center. M~. Smith replied there has been some indication fr~m the residents and they were c~nc.erned about having a teenage center at that location~ but that the City of Anaheim has ~ot rece(ved anything ftom the Garden Gr~ve Community Church. Janice Staley, 104 Wesi Tiller, Anahsim, indica[ec! she had not been contacccd and iridicated~ agai~, she felt those people on Tille~ should be sent a surv~y. Mr. Smitl~ reported that the questtonnaire ~~ad been sent to those residents within 300 feet from the carners of subJect property and hat if the property was being rented~ they wouid not have recetved a notice. Ms. Staley i~idicated they own th~ir property. Chalrman Pro Tem~ore Herbst furcher explained that the Planning Department uses three methods of ac"vertising~ even though the State requires t~at only one method bs used: 1) notlces to those oeople liviny wlthin 30Q feet~ 2) the advertisement In the ntwspaper. and 3) a nottce Es posted on the propert•• itself. Ms. Staley stated ,he felt when a change is affecting I~cr chtldren or her home~ she should be contacted. She indicated she had found out about this hearing by word of mauth. She 3/9/78 MIf~UTCS~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ March g~ 1978 7~~~33 EIR N0. 212 ANO GEI~ERAL PLAN AM~NDMENT N0. ib5 (cc ~inued) polnted out they Iiv~ on the corn~~ oP Hester and Tiller and are affected by the davelopment on Simmons~ and thet the exh~t,lts shown wltF~ lcwr density tndlcate Tiller qotng throuc~h. She polntad out the childrr.n are not gaing to the Anahelm School Olstrict but are walking to Gerden Grove~ and she felt k;ien there Is no room for schon) childi~n tn A~ahetm~ no more residences ahould be allawed. Shc pointed out there are no sidewalks and there are three schoc~l bus stops at thafr corner. Iln) ly Reese~ 141 West t( I ler~ Anaf~etm~ lndlcated sh~ ha,1 been contacted; that they I t~it right tn the mlddl^ ~f the block on Tiller; that therc a~e no SidewAlks on Tilier an~1 most everyono has two or tliree children; and *.Fiat because there are no sidewalks~ the children pley in the strest; that the only thing they ar~ ag~inst is haviny Tiller Stre~t extended~ that they are not agalnst havtng the land develaNed and would ltke to see the white Front store taken out and some type of cortmerctel d~velopment~ like a supermarket, put in or s(ngle-femlly resldencey, but not apartments; that ti~ere ar~ apartments ~11 the wey from Kotclla througt~ to Orangc:wood~ f~om I~Arbor to th ~~nta Ana Freeway, and ~pertments on the other sldc, and ther: are plenty of apartrnents i~~ :he area~ but they ~Iri rn t want any developmcnt that would adciincre traffic ~. their street; and that they were concerned people will use it for a shortcut to yet to tlerbor by nvoiding Chaprnon, Charles Dearborn, 2241 South Oertley~ Anaheim~ indtcated he Iives on the corner of Tiller and the White Front property~ that h(s property ad_iotns the White Front c,ropcrty. He indicated he was agatnst opening Tiller because there is hea~y traffic and there ere no sidewalks; that he hes tliree ch(Idren who play in thc side yArd and any ~ars c~xning through are going fast; tt;at they alreaJy tiave hot-rods com(nc~ down into the dead-end street; that they ar~e dead s~t against apar~.ments in the arca; that thcy would like t.o see comnerc~»1 and professfonal offices end felt that low density~ single-femily hom~s would be acceptable. He ref^~red to the vandalism d! ;he White Front store and stated the worse part of the proposa) Is the opening oF Tiller. Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst stated tl•a[ if Tiller was extended tnto a single-family area with a cul-de-sac street to service whatever is there~ it would probably back right up to his home~ and asked ff that would have much of an impact~ and Mr. Dearborn replied that it would. .,tia! rman Pro Tempore Hert~st pointed aut tf~ere are 50 acres that havc to h•~ serviced fi~ Some mar~ner and if single-family homes are allowed, (t would not ~+ct the street as much as a through screet. Mr. Dearborn pointed c~:; that wllken ~lay has a liyht ~nd he felt that would be a more practlcal access tfian Tillcr, Chairman Pro Ten-porc Herbst stated at the present tirne the Planning Cortmissiur~ is considering a Genera) Plan amendment to dectde how much resldential and commercial development they are g~fng to ~llaw~ and that when a devel~per comes in wtth a rezoning~ he would present the trafftc •out with the precise plan and thP Planning Commission wouid discuss tt~e problems ~f illler Avenue at that tire. Mr. Uearborn indicated he felt ~xhibit G would be th~ best for the res(dents. Lee 5taley~ 104 West Tiller~ AnahGim~ indicated hE agreed the property is an eyesore and that somethtny should be done wit~ the property~ but that their main concern was the open,ing of Tiller and that they wo~id tc faced ~ith a pr~blPm with *~is property and the p~operty d,scussed earlier at tiaster and S(mmons. Chairman Pro Tert~oi•e Merbst pointed out ~hat if Exhiblt G is recommenc:ed for approval and the oamer comes in with a development for single-famfly residences, then there wculd be another pubiic hebring at that time to cilscuss the pl~ins. 3/9i 78 MiNUTES~ At1AHE1M CITY PLANNING COkMIS510N~ March 9~ ~978 ~$'~34 EIR N0. 212 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDHENT N0. 145 ~contlnued) Mr. 5taley tnd(c~te~d~ again~ thelr concern was malnly with Ttller, pnd Cliatrman Pro Tenpore Nerbst pointed out that with the Input thcy have recelved to~~ght~ when the development does come in~ Tiller wlll certoinly be considored. Mr. Staley tndfceted concern that people would be cuttt~g over the pr~pertfes to tho other straets. He suygestcd thac nccess be acquired off HArbor. Ile polntPd out ~ development tn the vicfnity of the Orange Post Office with two brick walls f~r access Into apartments from tt~e commercial developn~nt frontin~~ the street~ and suggegted that be conside~ed for thts property. Chairman Pro Tempore Herl,st statcd the multinl^-fam(ly ordinanceS woulci determine what is allowed on the property and that would be c~nsidered at the time the development comes in, but that this is a General Plan amendrnent and they havc to wait and see what a developer brtngs in before they can discuss the circulat!on. Mr. Smith palnr~d out tt~at the Planning Department has reccived input from th~ property ow~ers and th~~ a proposal is imminent. He F~ointed out the rxt~ibits are all City- origtnated an~i he felt Exhibit E was morP suitable for the property c~wners ~nd Irdir;ted they had asked the resident~ ho~w they ~'elt and had ~e~eive~i 13 -'espo~tsr_s from those: who had no ob.jecti~ns and 8 from those who dtd. Mr. Staley indlcated those people tontac:~d within 30~ feet were not thr. people who w^~~ld be affecte,f~ ~ut ~hose ~aho Ilve on Tlller wauld be more aff~~cted and nakurally those peuNle contacted wouiJ rather see Tiller go througii tha~ their own street. Holly Reese indicated the resldents would defin+tcly tike to sec a park in the area, as menti~~ned earllor; that Pioneer Park in ~he area af Chapman ~~nd Nastcr is • arden Grove park, nnd that they have received i~formatior fr~m the school not to let ~ children walk through that park because of problems. Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst indicated the Plannin~ Gommission has no control over what the City Counci 1 does ab~ut pari.~ for th~. City. Bil' Asawa. 54~ North Goldc:n Circle Drive~ 5anta Ana~ ind'cated he was speaking on behalf of the major(ty of ct~e prop~_.rty vwner~ of the undeveloped property; that thc property co~slsts of approximacely 18 acres (blhite Front store) owncd by interstate Properties an the n~rth :ide~ the ;~ropetC~ un the southeast portion whlch is being purchased by the Sand Oollar Developn~e~t Compary of Huntington Beach~ and the 14.81 acres of Gulf Oil property wh{ch has been puichased by Downey Savings b Loan and will be dev~loped by Ousiness Properttes. Ne stated ~eprese~~tatives~ from Sand Dollar Oevelopment and Business Properti•~s are pr~sent to disc~.~s the proposals. He i~ cated they ha~1 met w~*_h the Parks and Recreation Commisston in February and had rece~ved a letter from Richard Kamph-fner~ Superintendent af Parks~ indlcating there is a lack of parks in this Immediate are~~. He indicated Chey ~ ve been nottfied that the Parks and Recreatian Commission is not in a{~osition financially to acq~ire the property and that at this point they are proceeding with development plans. He indtcated tt~ey would prefer to see ExFibit E approved~ which would be a combination of commertia) and medtum denslty residential. Ne indicated that the fears expressed bY the opposttion regarding the extec~sion of Ttller wouid be alleviat:.d with the approval of Exhibit E because tha*. would be terminated at thet p~aperty and nat enter into the proJect. H~ stated this property has been zoned CG for a considerable length of tim~ and he felt if the demand was for commercial development of the property, it would have been developed commerclaliy. He indicated that an offer to purchase the .ear portion ^f the 3/9/7a MINUTES~ ANAHEIM GITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Merch 9~ 197b 7B-13S E~_R NO_ 212 AND G~NERAL PLA~~ AMENOMENT N0. ll~y (continucd) White Front property othe~ than that needcd for Tnys-R-Us had been made~ with plens to incorporatn thet Into tt~i~ praperty and to havc it uscd for some type alternative ~esldential use. He Indicated tl~at the Toys-R-Us operetion is sutcessful and is pr~bably the onlY succassful store in the Interstate Store ope~ation wl~ich has bee.n in bankruptcy p~oceed{~gs, H~ lndlca~ted the 4lhite Front store lias been on eyesore and hAS creeted a lot of problems~ but that favorable approval of this request would cause this buildlnn t~ be ellmineted and make the entire proJect A very viable pro.ject. Chuck dall~ Ganeral Pertner nf ~~~siness P~aportles, 17~ S';y Park Boulevard, Irvine~ indtcat~d they had be~ ~~led in this property for several years end were in esc~ow t~ purchase It frun Gu~ at tl~e present tlme and that they had made contact with severbl cc~~n~~~ercla) type u: and at this paint~ th~ ma,jorlty of the approx~~nately 14 acres is under thelr control, tle indicated a m~ximum of d acres would be developed corm~prclally end that the ma,j~rity of the frantage on that woulcl br on liarbor l3oulev~rd; that the frontage on Chapman is af little wrrn~~rcial value. -~• stated they did not want to create a spot zoning situatlon and felt the bal~nce of the fruntage to the Goodyear store should be lnclucied in 3 commercial ~one. He inJicated they did n~t think a professlonal-type facll(ty would be economicallti• vi~i~le (n the near future. He indicated they felt a comb(natlon of commercial and resident'al would be the best way to develop this Pr~netle~ and it wt~s their opir,lon medium density is one that could fill the needs existing area and that the additlonalec5rmiepi11a~Centc~ wlth a'marketcend drugstore is bef~9rea. t~e indicated a nelghborhood-typ 9 planned. Holly Reese asked if inedium density meant apartments~ townt~ouses, cr condomintums~ and Cha(rman Pro Tem~ore Herbst po(~ted i[ could mean apa,~n~°nts~ and Ms. Reese indicated they preferre' to see c~ndominiums or tawnhouses becaus:- you do have homeowne~s, and when you have a whole lot o` tenants~ you have a lot of problems. Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst indicated che Code dc~es ~ot allow two•story apartments to be butlt wlthin 150 fcet of singl~:-`amily homes. Randy Blanchar~, Vice President of Sand Do~lar Development Carporation, ind(cated he was respo~sible for the whole property and that there arc three property owners thatment~onse the total area; that Mr. Ball would be responsible for a nice GOOrtunit, oVeurchase the Harbor 6oulevard; that he has agreed to give Sand Dol~ar the opp Y P re~t of thr. land from Bus~ness Propertles~ which would be epproximatcly 6 Acres; that they naw have 9~~cres ~n Lhapman as shvwn on Exhibit E and are acquiring another 6 acres f~om 8usi~ess F operties and the balance from Interstate Storea. He indicated they plan to le5sen the impact of cars and traffic tn the residential areas as much as possible and that perheps the combination of townhouses and conde~miniums can be considered, but rlyht now they arc just working on the framework; tl~at this w(11 be a brand new~ beautiful shoppi~g center down Ha~bo~ wi~icti will incorporate the Goodyea~ store; and that there will be a wall toes~wuuldenrobably~ haveatwoedifferent typestof residential,Pwithrsome.stn~le- indicated th y famtly or townhouses and hlgher density on Chapman. Chairrtu+n Pro Tempore Nerbst clartfled that the ~roJect being dlscu~sedWhjchdisenot shown. tombination of low-medium density. single-family, and meditm density, Ron Smith pointed out this type exhibSt could 6e provided. Mr. alanchard indicated that as far as the park question go~s~ they felt the logtcal place, if the City hed the ~^~hat theiriplanseatrPpesent are1to demollsh that buildinge White Front store is located; t 3i9%~a MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION~ March 9~ 1~78 ~8'~3~ EIP, N0. 212 ANO GENERAL PLAN AM~NDMENT N0. 1~~5 (confinued) ._..._._. - - because it is a hazard end an eyesore. He pot~ted out th~ locAtion of the ccxnmercial and tl~e residentia) as praposad or~ the plan. There were qucstlons from the audience regardtny the extension af Tiller~ with Mr. 6lanchard indic~ting that thls could be cfian,yed. 711E PUBLIC I~EARING REGARJING TFIIS PORTION 0~ THE G~',i.R/1L PLAN AMCNDMENT W115 (.LOSED. Cammtsslaner Johns~n indicated his concern regnrding th~ rioht-o~-way to get access into the resi~entlal area and felt the Planning Commlssion should be very carr.fu) thrt if Exhibit J Is approved~ with ve ry Ilttlc f~ontage and the developer cames iri with a s~lid co;nmerclal developn~ent elong flarbor nnJ keeps tt within the Code~ the Plenning Commissi~n would not yet to revlew it; that he coul~i rpmove all access to that pt~ce of property. Mr. 5mith pointed out tt~a*. wh(chever exhibit Is appr~ved~ ~ r.~ntny ectlon would be requtred on the redr portion and tr~ct mep proce~~{ny5 an that arGa of Ti~ler~ unless it wes a commercia) venture within Code. Chairman Pro Tempore Nerbst as-:ed if the c.irculatlo~ elerr~nt should Ne add~~ esi~ tf thelr plans show a street throu~h the middle of that ~r~~psrty to Harbor~ and Mr. ~all lndicbted the plan is flexlble bt this palnt. Ne indicated a plon had been submitted to the Traff!c Engineer a~d that he had said he does not want e pubiic street coming nff I~arbor between Wilken Way And Chapman. Ghairman Pra Tcmporc Herbst asked the total frontage on Harbor and it wAS rcplied It was approximately 1520 feet. Mr. Staley indicated he hn<i a question reg~irding the ~n~rship of Chapman Avenue. whether it was Anaheim or Garden Grove~ and pointed out that at one time he had wanted to put a garage entrance onto that street and that Anaheim had told ~im to go to Garden Grove because they awned the street~ and he was concer~ed if the proJect was approved that Garden Grove could come tn and say they did not want s st~eet ihere. Mr. Schwartze pointed out the City bounda ry line Is immediately adJacent to the edge of the property~ but tha~ is not t~ue on Chapman Avenue; that if the City wants to put access onto Chapman~ Harbor, or Nilken Way, it would be ++t the discreiion of the Ctty and with t•he advice of the City Traffic Engineer. (.omm(ssioner Linn poin*.ed out that he could not see the problem as a cortmercial strip stil! leAV~es a lot of access ta Nllken and Chapman and you could get out eithar way. We indicated he tended to agree wlth not having a street through; that there are two lighks~ one at Wiilcen and one at Chapman and he would not like to have scxneone say they needed a light when there were two there already. Chairman Pro Ternpore tie~bst indlcated the Cortrnission wouid have to see the plans, the density involved~ and the kind of shopping cente~ proposed a~d tfe together the plans to ~ee if a circulation element is needed on the site. ACTION: Cn~nnis~ianer l.inn off~~ed a motior~~ ser.onded by Commtssioner King and MOTION '~~D (Cheirman Tolar being absent and Commissioner Barnes voting no)~ that the Planr~~ng Cortmission racomrnend adoption of Exhibit J. which would be a modification of Exhibit N, changing the low density to lcw•medtum de~sity. criar to voting on the metion~ the Comraission discussed Exhibit J, Hith Mr. Smith and Mr. Schwartz= notinq ths: Exhibit H would be modified, chaiigin~ the low dens(ty residentiai 3/9/78 ~ ~ h'INUT~S~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING C~MMISSIAN~ Merch g, 1973 78-131 EIR N0. 212 AND GEN~RAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0, 145 (contlnued) destgnatlon of the northeast corner Ca low-medlum densixy residantlal and that portion on Chapman to the existing commerclal development to general conmerctal dcsignatior. Commisa(oner Barnes Indicpted h~r concern that the Instancns of epartments is increastng so much that it is becoming e ccm cern; that this City hes a high prrcentage of ap~rtm~nts and she felt it was something the Commission sh~uld be awsro of. Shc felt the number of apartm~nt units allow~d dep~nds upon the direction you want Anah~etm to go~ and thbt an area llke this would nat be planned and if the Commission ts ic~oktng at thls as vacant property~ except for the existing commerclal development~ t~ow would a developer comn tn and deslgn this; she d(d not think lt could be done and did not und~rstand why the Commisslon was considcring this and why tf~cre could nat be low-mcdtum denstty on the entlre are~~ and she did nat see the need for mo:c apartments in an alrcady dense area. Chalrman Pro Tempare Nerbst point~d out there is a 1.3~ vacancy rate In apartment units In An~~hetm and he felt there was a need for more apartments. He stated that young couples cannot afforcJ to buy hcxnes and need to rent apartments and the Commtsston Gannot turn thetr bPCks on them~ an~i that in c~mmercial areas normAlly htc~h ~i~nsity is pl~nned ~rou~d it to suppdrt the commerclal area; that low•~n~dium denslt~+ is planned t~ provide a buffer zone between the residencia! propertles and the conxnrrcial propertlcs and felt that was good land planning becau~~e (t suppo~ts the area and gives tt~e areA a dlffere~t type of residential property. Mr. Schwartze polnted out that the total prrc~nta~e combining all forms o~ multlole- family~ which would include apa~tments~ Fourplexes, triplexest condominlums~ townhouses. etc.~ is 47$ •.f thn total dwellings in Anahe(m~ wlth an almost equai number of single- famlly~ ancJ approximately 6$ in mobtle~~omes, Commissioner Johnson asked if the height rPstriction would apply wtth the low-medium density desi~nation~ and Mr. Smith replied tf~at lo~w-medtum wo~~ld be the RM zoning and does not have a restrictlon. Holly Reeves tndicated she felt the arca is overpopul~ apartments in fhe area all the way t~ thc fr~:eway and rather :ee condominfums because they felt a different they arc a priced home young couplcs can afford; that youny people trying to buy hcmes~ but that they would xhan apartments. ~ted with apartments and painted out to Katella. She. stated they would type of pcople buy condominiums and she can see the difficulty with be more in favor of condom(niums Mr. Dearborr askeJ for an explanation regarding the iwo-story restrtction~ and Canmissioner Johns~n pointed out there are certain places where Cwo-story apartments cennot be buil[ adJac~nt tc residential. Mr. Schwertz~e pointed out that two-story apartments nust be 1;J feet from single-family residential and that there is no rest~iction if single-fasriily dwelltngs we~e put in, two- story homes could be built. He explained that if a developer proposed t~ develop apartmer~ts which were two-story, it would require a varionce petition~ necessitattng a public hearing~ and that he did not knoti+ of any such variances requested which had been granted. Mr. Dearborn potnted ou~ thet before he had moved to Anaheim he had ~ented a home in Bellflvwer and that some gentleman ~~ad boughc properties and built arartments atl araund rhe area and he was conc^rned this could happen here. 3/9/78 MINUTES~ ANNNEIM CITY PL,qNNING CONMI~SION, March 9~ 1978 7g~13g E I R N0. 212 AND GENERAL PIAN AMENDME~~T ~~0. 145 (cont i nucd) Chelrman Pro Tempare Herbst pulnted out that eve~yone has the r(ght to ask for rexoning~ but thet does not mean he Is going t~ get it; that there would be another ~-ublic hearing and the opposltlon would have th~ rlght to volce thel~ opin(ons. Commissioner Darnes Indicated her r~egative vote reflected her fr.eli~,y that the d~enslty Is too high for thfs pt~rticular ~rea; that shc would rather scc low-medium density for the wliole area. Chalrmen Pro Tempnr~e Herbst indicated it was the Commissiun's Intent that the development plans be submltted for RM-4000 and a lady from the audl~nce Indtcated they dtd not want Tiller to be opened~ end Chalrman Pro Tempore Ilerbst Indicated therc wlll be other public hearings wtien de~velopment plans are submitted and the oppasttion will havc the oppc>rtunlty to malce sure that Tiller is nat opened, The developer lndicated he would be hapNy to meet witti the community and shaw them th~ plans~ and Mr. Smith indlcated the staff woul,i be h~ppy to coordtnate these t~~pes of me~ttnc~s. AREA IV - ~~ORT11w'EST CORNER OF KATELLl1 P,VENUE AND WA~.NUT STRE:ET, Mr. Smith explained this request was Initiated by tf~e property owner of three vacant lots encortry~assing 2tS~00Q+/- square Eeet to reflect a comm~rctal d~.3lgnat!on instead of the currant law density designation; presr_nt zoning is resldential~ single-femily (RS-7200); the fru;~tage ts toward Walnut Street and on tn~ easterly sid~ of Walnut Street Is a bowlinc~ elley iwondcr Bvwl) and the weste~ly portio~ fs developed as single~femlly homes. A scrles of four land use altcrnat(ves has been prepared as follows: Exhib(t A- law-medium residenttal (up to 18 units per gross acre) on .65 acre. Allows for low-profile~ att~ched unlts. The one-story restrlction !s applicable due to the existing single-family homes along Holgate Orive and 11~ather Lane, Exhibit B- conrnercial professiona! Qn .65 acre. Allows fo~ office uses~ such as dental~ doctar~ real estat~~ etc. Exhibit C- rncdlum density res(dent(r+l (up to 36 units per gross acre) on .G5 ocre. Essentiatly the most tntense (nunber of units) that the Genaral Plan would allow. A practical difficulty would exist in meeting all the standards af the RM-1200 zane and a he(ght rastriction to one sto ry w~..ld also apply. Exhlbit D- general commerclal on .b5 acrc. This woulC authorize ~eiail sales and stores on the slt~~ once zoning and building codes have been ascertatned and approved for the site. A citizen/residential survey was mailed to 75 residents cf the Walnut/Katella area~ and of zG responses receivad, 11 indicated professionai offices; 8 commerciat retail; and 7 single-family residential uses for the site. Twelv~ adJacent prope~ty owne~s h~ve signed the petitio~s indtcating their approval of the request for commercial. The appltcant intends to construct a commercta) build(ng providing n~ighborhood retail service. It was not~d a petttion was submitted indlcating endorsement of the ides tn build neighborhood stores on the northwest corner ~f Katella and Walnut; that this praperty ts no longar suiteble for private homes and has become a nuisance end with the understanding that a fast-faod re.staurant will noL be a part of the cammercial development~ and subJect petitton was stgned by 13 persons. 3/9/78 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI SSION, Ma~ :h 9~ 197a ~IR N0. 212 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENpMENT N0. 145 (co~tinued) Mr. ~mlth polnted out thet thc Traffic ~ngin~arwants the be no access to Katel la; thai ~ny aecr.s~ wi l l have to be Intersection of Wa~lnut and Kbtella• Cecil $~~wpndered2haw,long thevownershwouldipayctaxeshw~thoutireallzing,a profit~yendr ZO yoars an that he had no obJectlons to any of these plans. Commissioner Johnson clarified tha t Mr. Stowers liveci at the corner ~f Noigate and Hoather. Commissloncr King Indicated he did not feal this was a su(table p1ACe for h~mes. Herman Flum~ 1A2Q5 Havcrs. Van Nuys ~ indicated he has bcen e property owne~ for 24 yeers and was the orlginal property owne r purcF~as(ng 1~3 lots at the tlme of subdivision~ of wf~ich 15 we~e devalc~ped and sold~ and that everyor~e reallzes the turmoll this Area has had becauss of the dr 1 ve- i n tlieater. D i sney 1 and and tf~e 4londer aawl . He i ndl cated that potentl~l biryers for residential propert ies retre~ted unti 1 the property owners who arc there now wauld be del ighted to get out. He pol~~ted ou[ tf.at adJacent o~ Kate11A there are four lots thet have no side yards except thr road itself. Ne (ndicated he had been ~~ touch wlth many of the property r~w ~ers ~butting the property itself and that he hed met wi th 13 of the vwners of 17 lots wi thtn a 3~G'fcx~t racitus; that thr~uc~h the years they have unJerstond the turmoll, firs t the deed restrictiuns which prevented them from doin~ anythlny ~.vlth t~ie property before tlie General Plan was approved; that they had trled to eontact all ~2 property owners In the o ~iginal subdlvisio~ end had as many as 49 sign off the deed rostrtctions; t.hat the deed re::tr(ctfons expired after 20 years and that ~ust prior to explration~ thry had sue d and iegally removed the deed restrtctions; that recently he had been in touch with prof esslonals in the Planntng Qepartment and was advised to apply for tl~e General Plan Amendrnent. He pointed out the property to the east is commercial~ the property immediately opposlte an Katella is commprclal, and th~ property on Walnut is conmercia) , and that there is na other use for this pr~~perty: that it is not economlc^lly viable for townhouses or residential of any typc; th ~t they are seeking approval to develop a mod est~ n elghb~rhood-type cnrmxrcial development to tie tn w(th the existing six or seven stc~res a~ross the street, inaking a cente~ to serv(c~ the community; that there is a liquor stor~~ a beauty parlor, and a few restaurants acros5 the streec~ but that the nearest facilities are two or three miles away. Ne indicated he had submitted a petltfon conta6r~ing 13 signatures and since that time h~ hps oYtainedread the additional 12 signatures of the people Immed(atety adjacent to the ro ert He p~tition. as follaws: "We, the undersigned, er~dorse the Idca to build nelghborhood stores on the northwest corner of Kateila a nd'~ainut. This properCy is nr, longer sultable for private homes and has beec~me a nuisance. Ne understand that a fast~F~od restaurant wi 11 not be pert of the comn~ercial development." He indica~ed~veloamentsthat wouldrbeedetrimenntalttottheirpprope~typandathatt~he p~oposed cnnxnerc a P 6000 square feet wi th plenty of parking, Chairman Pro Tempore He~bst poin ted out that lf the plan is approved~ a 20-foot h~ffcr must be provided between the homes~ and Mr. Flum indicated he was aware of 4hat. Commissioner Ki~9iedkit would c r~at~h a hardsh p as heehascto~havertw driveways,hbutsfelt and Mr. Flum rep he could work something out with the Traffic Engineer. 3i9i~a 18-139 developer to be aware there wi11 11~ fect ~orth of the 1 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COh9MISSION~ Ma~ch 9~ 197g 78•140 EIR N0. 212 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 145 (cnntinued) ~~..+i~ ~~ w~.~~ .~....+ ChAirman Pro Tempore Herbst tndicated this would come before t he Plannin g Commtsslan when his plans Are b~ought in, Cammiasioner King asked Mr. ~lum if he preferred Exhlblt D wi-ich would wllow a commerclaT area rather than a profezstonal area~ end Mr. Flum replied th a t this was correct. Commissioner Ltnn I~dlcated that of the four houses on the pla~, three were taken (nto consideration nnd askeJ ebout the fourth and he indicated that because o+F the 110-foot roqutrement for the access~ if the faurth piece of property we re require d, it would make a better development. Mr. Flum pointed out that It is possible but that It would co use a problem with commercial fronting dl rectly an Holgat~; thet tt-c p~esenc plan backs up to rasi dent ial which Is already tenced and protected. Commisslaner Dav(d asked who awned the property to the north, and M~. Flum replled that Gary Glenn awned that prop~rty and that he I~ad siqned the pet i tl~n. THE PUaI.IC 11EARING 01~ TNIS PORTION OF TNE fENERAL PLAN AMENDMEN'f WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commissioner King affercd ~ m~tlor~. second~d ~y Cortmissioner Dav(d and MOTION C~R IED (Cheirman Tolar belny absent), thAt the Commfssion does hereby ~ecommend to thc City Council that Exhibit ~ be eppr~ved for Area IV of Genera 1 Plan Ame n dment No. 145 for general commerclal uses. AREA V- SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RAMPART STREET AND ORANGEWOOD AV ENUE. Mr. Smith explained th(s (s a city initiated requPSt to comply with the sale of city-owned Qroperty; that it is proposed ta change the existing induskrial designa Llon on the Genaral Plan; that the slte has been authorized for sale and placed in estrow b y the C(ty Council; and that the property is owned by the City of Anaheirn and is undevalope d, encompassLng approximately 16 acres and is zoned public recreation. A¢e ries of fo u r altern~tlves has been prepar~ed as follows: Exhibit A-~eneral cortmercial on 3.70 acres; commercial profession al on 12.46 acres. This proposal complies with the initial agreement of the Clty Coun c il In considering the sal~e of the land. Commercial uses would occur adJecent to Orangewoc~d Avenue and offict p rofessional on the southerly portion of the site. Exhlbit B- general commercia) on 16.16 acres. This is the same a s Exhibit A, except that the si te is al l c~nercial. It would sti l l permit offlce uses on the southerly portion~ but also commercial. Exhtbit C- commercial professional on tf~.16 ac~es. This would allow anly officet on eh~ site~ (nc.luding the frontage along Orangc,wvood Avenue. Exhibit D- commercial-recreation on 16.16 a~res. Su~jeet p~oposat would be long- ra~ge and conceptual only. It could be construed that dcmand in th e~tadiun area would be greater for hotels/motels or recreatia~ai uses in the fut ure. Certain comrnercial-reci•eatton uses (hotels and motels) are authorized ln the cortrnercia) 1 imited zonP (Cl) ~ a~ wel l~ by approva! of a co~dit(onal use permT t, Commiss ioner Joh~Yun asked why th i s property was be ing co~s i dered i nst~ad of the entt re area~ and Mr. Schwartze explatned that when it was discussed et the Council level in 3/9/18 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION~ March 9~ ~978 78-141 EIR N0. 212 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENOMENT N0. _l45 (co~ttnued) roletionship to the sale of the property~ It was determtned it wa! not in conformance with the exlsting Generel Plan a nd that a General Ple~ amendment would be necessary. Commisstoner Johnson Indtcated he did not see the property as caminercia) professiona) on the back portlon of the property ~ and Chai rmen Pro Tempor~e Herbs t pointed out tihat they do hevo a ro~d from O~angewood around the p~orerty and that the adJ.~cent property is being doveloped as a fire tral~ing sita~ and poi ted out the circulatic~n road (Rampart) whlch ls to the theaters and they woulci have an access to the sito fo~ the comn~rcial professlonal uses; thny would hava atces s off Orangavood for the yen~ral commerctal and offlce professional could have two accesses off Rampar~. THE PUNLIC NEARING ON THIS PORTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT W4S CLOSED. ACTION; Commissi~ner Da vtd offered a motion~ seconded by Cortmissic3ner King ~nd MOTION C~F~D (Chairrru~n Tolar besing absent), that the Anaheim City Planninq Commisslon does hereby ~~commend to rhe City Councll that Exhibit A be approved for A~ea V of Gen~ral Plan Amendment No. 1~~5~ providing yenerai commerclal fronting O~angewood Ave~ue And comm~rclal professtonal on the southe rn portion. AREA VI • EAST OF SANTA ,4NA FREEuAY. SOUTN OF KATELLA AVENUE, NORTN OF ORANGEWOOD AVENUE~ F30Ul.EVARU. Mr. Smlth ex~',ined this Is a city in(i(ated req~est to reflect curr::nt land uses and zoning. On the 1969 Gent r al Plan~ this ~+rea was regarded as a potensfal llnk of commercial-recreation ac tivity between the "Disney Core" and the stoc~tum~ however~ subsequent development of industrial has occur~ed, Tliis area is approxim.~tely 150 acres and is currently designa te d cortwnerclal-recreation~ but zoned limited i~dustrlal (ML). A series of four land use altern~tlves has bePn prepared as follows: ~xhibi[ A- reflects e xisting zoning and land uses. Exhibit B- all indust rlal land uses are proposed. Certaln cortxner~clal uses are authorized in industria) ar~as via approvel of a cAndttional use pcrmit. Exhibit C- introduce s A new category dGStgnation to the General Plan (comrnert~al manufactu~iny) which wauld allc~w commercial sale of goods manufactured or produced on the premises. Only a portion of the site vrith frontages along Analieim Boulevard and Orangewood Av~nue are noted in this new category. Exhibit D- entire commercial manufacturing. In dpveloping industrtal, this area has integrated with the "Central industrtal Core" of Anaheim~ which (s desiyn a t ed as the area generally north of Kateila and south ~f South Street. The general ind ustrial category did not aggregate ~eCw~en light or heavy industrlal, nor did it re eog~ize sal~es of goods produced on the premtses. Mr. Schwartze explained t h at essentially this is a housekeeping it~m; that the commercial manufacturing destgnatio~ ls the result of thfn~s that are being requested in an industrla) area, and want~d to b~ing (t up for Planning Commissfon consideration~ but normally whe~ someone Han ts to sell a product they produce in an industrla) area~ they must do so by means of a conditional use permit ar a veriance~ and referred to the establishment at the soutt~west corner of Katella and State College where they are doing that now by approval of a co~ditional use permit on industrially-ZOned property. 3/9/18 Y MINUTES~ ANAHEI~~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ March 9~ 1978 7$•142 EI R N0. 212 AND GENERAL PU1N AMENDMENT N0. 145 (co~t t nued) Chalrman Pra Tempore Nerbst ~sked whet is generally planned for the area alon,y Anahefm 8oulevard where th~re are some rather old bulldings, some being knocked down dnd in the state of disrepetr and with a lot of frvmiaga. Mr. Smith ~eplted this is an aree In transitton to Industrlal; that thcre arc a couple of industrlel parks along Anehcim Boulevard, somo having commercial uses. Mr . 5chwar tze exp 1 a I ned tf~a t on the cur ren t Genera t P 1 an th t s area t s zuned for commerclal-recreatton~ which Is confusing when it is being devalaped industrlally. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Schwartze to clarify E xhtbit A with the locattons lndlcated for exlsting commercial development, and Mr, Schwartze replled that no matter whaC the rezoning wou1~1 be~ those w~u1~i c.ontinue as existing, nonconformina uses. Rosalyn McMahc~n~ 13892 Orangewood~ Indicated she has a hard time getttng the police to respond to her arca; that wt~en she lclls them her Hddress~ they say they cannot help hcr~ and to coll the Cnunty Sheriff~ and then she has to explain tl~at the street and 5 feet of the property actually belong to the City of Anaheim; that Oroweat Is across the street and they have been In the yard and seen som~one tryiny co burglarize Orr~veat and it took the police one hour to resp~nct. ~he was concerned about the p~operty heing developed and allvwing the developer to sell the product he produces to tlie public +~nd was conce~ned about the developments working late at night. She tndicated there Is a tra,ln which does come tn and that they must arise early in order to drive a bus~ and tl~at the train revs Its engine and creates a lut of noise~ and asked wliy they could not shut aff their engines. She alsa was concerr~ed about the types of bustness that wouid be gair.a in and referred to the children in the neighborhoad and tl~e peaple exceeding che speed llmit. She indtcete: she had called the police because of drAg racing ar~d thAt she h~ad stood in the street to stop the drag racing because tt~e police did not shnw up for two hnurs. She indicated they had put an injunction aqainst the Angel Stadtum because of minors runnf~g around with bcer and wine and po'ice officers tell(ng her they could not do anything about (t~ and that she was concerned about wl~at is going in across the fteld; that they do want it develope~ because they are tired of the Santa Ana winds hla~ing dust and felt the Commission should rtalize that whatever is allowed to bc developed there will affect her property, and asked (f they were goin~ to have a beautiful greenbelt area screening it from their vlew. Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst po(nted out he was concerned about the same things. Robert McMahon indicated he w as concerned beca use some developme~t af motels or hotels~ etc.~ had been proposed but had not come about, which would iiave been (deal with the Angel Stadium. He indicated he pr~ferred Che third plan if frontage along Orangewood could be designated for office professional. He felt it would not be as detr(mental as commercial manufacturing~ which would create notse and other problems. THE PUBLIC HEAEtIt~G ON THIS PORTlO~! OF THE GENERAL PLAN AME~~DM~:NT WAS CLOSED. Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst asked (f the County property across the street was a p~tential annexation to the Ctty of An~heIm. and Mr, Smith replied thak it was potential annexatton to the City of Oranye, that it was with(n their sphere of influence and the existing General Pian shows this area to remain rnedium and low density residential. Ct~airman Pro Tempore Herbst pointed out that h;s examination of the prnperty showed resldential on the south side of the street~ and he felt development of businesses atong there would be very detrimental to those houses~ even if they are in the County. Ne stated it wauld be possible they cAUld be developed with a back-up treatment w(th 3/9/78 MINUTES~ ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ March 9~ 1978 78-143 EIR N0. 212 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 145 (continued) landscaptng down Orangewoad ~nd a wall with landscnping protecting the houses i~c~oss the atreet~ but he was not sure this w~as within the realm of this heartng. Mr. Smith pointed out this could be added as ~ footnote to the 9xhibit~ stating that prefGrence will be given to thosc rearin~~ onto Orengcwrood~ providing a buffdr to the residents. Chairmen Pro Tempore Harbst indtcated he thought manufacturtng-sete use along Anaheim Bouleva~d mtght be a new approach to certain types of bustnesses~ but along Orangewood he c~uld see tremendous traffic prablPms being createc~ and would llke to see a back-up trnatment wlth wells or landscaping to glve the restdentlal area the protectfon tt des~rves; Xhat the Street i~ yoing to be semi-corm~rclal becouse of the clrculel:t~n~ but he stlll would not want to have business activitles across the street from those homes. Mr. Schwartze indtcated the property is prr.sently zoned industrlal and bs lor~y as the devcloper meets the intention of the Codc right now~ he can bulld to the exist(ng zoning standarcls~ but would not be allowed to sell the products withaut the permission of the Pla~ning Commission. Chairman Pro Tempore Nerbst pointed out at this polnt In time there is no industrlal develop~ent along O~angewood; that if a back-up treatment werc ~rovided~ could they still put industrla) property in wtthout approv~l. Ronald Thompson, Planning Uirector, stated approximately 2; feet of landscaping beh(nd the curb would be a 9ood buffer and the Commission could requlre berming and another 40 to 50 feet of parking for the (ndustrial buliding~ and ~f there was no sale of commercial products, there would probably be less intense inclustrial use and less intcnse traffic. C~rtmissioner Linn indicated he would llke to see a combination~ ~xtendti~g the commercial all the way to Oranqewood, and agreed th~at the freeway exposure would enhance that, and he stlil thought the people south of Orangewoad should bc protected and the traffic across the street from them should be ~liminated. M5. McMaho~ indicated there are 11 hou:;~~ alon~ that street e~d as far as the City of Orange is concerned~ they had recently sent a letter asktng them ta Join the City of Orange. but they had turnecl that down; that they wished to stay Councy and restdential. She askCd if businesses wauld be allowed to operatc all night long with naisPS, and Chair~nan Pro Tempore Herbst pointed out there are no hours of restrictian for (ndustrlal mar+ufacturing. Gammissioner Barnes po~n[ed out there are noise restrictians; that they are not suppased to exceed 65 decibels at the proFerty line: that they have to be quiet enough to meet 5tate regulations and not keep people awake at nic,ht or create a nuisance, Ms. McMahon asked that if during the surmier months when Oroweat had their garage doors open and worked unCil 12:0~ a~d 1:00 a.rn.~ slamming carts around and making noise, would they have thc right to complain. Mr. Smith explained that if the noisE exceEds the noise level~ then they do have the rlght to comptai~ but it is diffitult to prove, and that the County ~f Orange does have a noise ordlnance and she may requzst that they take readings in this area~ and he would gtve her the noise control afficer's name. Mr. Schwartze pointed out that the noise from O~oweat and the railroad would be partially mttigated by developrr~nt with proper landscaping~ etc. 3/9/78 ~ .~ k • R~INUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ March 3r ~~~$ ~8•144 EIR N0. 212 AND GENEKAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 145 (tontinu~d) ~r ~ ~ Commissinner Klnq Indicated the~e had been sartx ruinors r~gard(ng an ove~pass ove~ the Ssnta Ana Frecwey st Orangew~od~ and Nr. Smlth replled this was still a possibtiity, that the Engtneering Department had requested that the Ge~aral Plan bc an~nded and it would be before the Commisston ln 30 to 6A days. Ms. McMaho~ Indic~ted she was confusad about th~ot; th~t ths r~ngtneer had sald they have changed their mind and it would be put over Stdte College~ and Mr. Smith indiceted thet durtng the past ken days the Engtneertng Department had royuestQd this be incluck d In the Circulatton ~loment. Canmissioner Johnson indicaced his concern with tndustrialists havtng the right t~ sell their mnrchendise and that a factary which is interestad in selling its m+~terlal retatl would be a smallar me~chant~ and he felt it would not mlx with an Industrlal p~rk and would do damage to the area. I~e f~;lt a nlc.e industrial park could be developeJ at tnis locatlon. Mr. Thompson lndlcated tf~,at tlie Chambor of Corm~erce had expressed that same concern. Conxnissloner Johnson ciarified ttiat the Chember of Commerce would be against hav(ng a retail sales s~r{p al~ny that fro~tage. Mr. Thompson rPpi(ed they are ~ot against the people wha are therc now; that they feel users shauld be primarily servfng the indust~la) areas rather tl~an retail~ end that khey thou~ht it w~uld be a liabiltty rather than an asset. Mr. Schwartze indicatcd that sinc~ this property is vn a grade Nith the freeway~ the Commission would be getting raquests~ such as car leasinn~ etc. Mr. Thompson pointed out that s~ve~al requests had been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council that front on State College and Katella, and Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst tndtcated these businesses were supposecJ to be servicing the needs of the industrla) communicy. Mr. Schwartze refer~ed to the water bed manufacturer which manufactures and selis the goods out thelr fronr. door. Commissioner Barnes referred to Anc~elus Furnitu~e Company who attuaily manufacturGS parts in the back and sells reteit. Sh~ indicated she was concerned about this betny a precedent-setting situatio~. Commissioner Ba~nes was concerned about what this would do to the growth in the ar~a, and Mr. Schwartze Indicated that most of the ~~operty fs under one ownership. Chairman Pro Tempore Nerbst pointed out tt~at thc City Councll for sev~n ycars had indicated "TS~e Orient" was going to go there under cflmmercial-recreatlon; that the Southern Paciffc Rallroad Company owned approximately 300 acres there and have just recently sold of~ that last piece; they stopped practically ail lndustrialists frcxn coming inta the a~ea. Ne stated the Planning Commission had tu~ned down "The Orient" several times because they felt (t would hurt develapment and industrial growth in the area~ but that now the industrial develo~~nt is starting to move again. Mr. Thompson pointed out there are about 45 acres undcr one ownership and there have been a lot of inquiries, but that the praperty awner is adopting an attitude of "let's wait and see." 3/9/78 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING C4N~MISSION~ March ~~ 19~8 78-14y EIR N0. 212 ANO C~NEitAL PLAN AMEN')MENT N0. 145 (continucd) Commisstaner Johnso~ asked lf therm was a particula~ pressure from any lendownera with the llttle commerclal strtp along th~~ front, and Mr. Smlth replled that thi~ was a City initlated rec,uest. AGTION: Commtsstoncr J~hnson o'.~~fered r~ motion~ seconded by Commissioner Qavid a~d MOTIqN CARRICD (Chairman Tolar being ansent), tt~at the Anahcim Ctty Planninq Cortmission does hareby ~ocommend to the City Cauncil that Exhibit B(Indust~(al) be ~dopted for Arca ~ll of Gen~+ral Plan Amendment No. 145, REQUEST FROM NILL AND CANYON MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMITTf.E (HACMAC) FOR A JOINT MEETING. .... ROrI Sm~t-t reported Lhdt the N111 n~.l f'nny~n N~~nir1~AI Arlvtsnry f.nmmittrn (HAfMAf~ hAA requested that the Pl~nning Commtsslon huld a mcetincl with them tc, disc:uss roadwsys~ but that If they dld not fer:l it would be appropriate sincc they would be having a public heariny in the futurP~ then he would convey that f~cliny lo the r.ommittec, or the Commission could aproint a re(~resentative t~ attend c-nc of th~1r meetinqs reqarding ths clrculation. Chalrman Pro Tem~orc Herbst indicated it was his feeling that sincP NACHAC is an edvisory body, h~: woul~ iike to see them hnld their own meetfnys and forward recumnrendatlons to the Planning Commisslon or send representatives to the R~eetings t~~ convey thetr thoughts and the Commission will t~ave their recanmendations in writiny b~fort them~ but he felt inasmuc~~ as they are advisory and a meeting witti seven Planning Commissinners and nine HACf1AC members would not ac:.omplish much~ and he would n~t ~~ant t~ be (nv~lved wfth a pressure meetiny tlia[ mfght sway his votc as far as ti~e Circulation Element fs cancerned. This was the genera) cons~nsus of the entire Cort-mission. Mr. Smith fndicated he would convey that message to HACMA'.. Commissioner Joh~son inJic~~ted he did nnt want N/1CNAC to feel this was a rebuff, but felt that it wUUld be better n~t to mect with them. MEETIMG PLACE FOP, CIRCULATIOtI ELEME~~T GENERAL PI.AN AMEMUME'~T PU4LIC NEARING. Mr. Smttf~ indicated a yreat deal of activity from the canyan arr.a residents is antlc(pated and wondcred if the Planning Cortmission desires to hold anotl~er evening meeting or wishes to handle this during one of the(r regular meetings. Commissioner Barnes ~ndicated she anticipated this would be at least a four-hour meeting. Mr. Smith indtcated they could schedule this hearing to be held at the Canynn High Schoo1 since m~st of the controversial icems are In the c;~nyon area. Chafrman Pro Tempore Nerbst pointed out Orangrwood Avcnur would also be well-attended and he did not think it would be advisable to hold a meetiny in the canyon area. Commissioner darnes suggested cnmbintng the Orangewood consideratlon of thc Circulation Element with a regular Planning Commisslon meeting and hnlding a separate hearing for *he canyon area items. ACTION: ~omrnisstoner David offered a motio~~ se~,~nded by Crmmissioner Barnes and PIOTION ~t D(Chairman Tolar being absent), that Environmental Impact Rapart N4. 212~ having been considered this date by the Anaheim City Pla~ning Comnission and evicknce, both written and ~ral. having ~een presented to supplement draft EIR No. 212~ finds that any signiflcant envircnmental impacts would bP mitigated by the requirement .`or conformance 3/9/78 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ma~ch A, 1978 EIR N0. 212 A~ID _GENERAL_PLAN AMEMOMENT N0. 145 (conti~ued) 78-146 with astablished City and State codes, policles~ plans end ordlnances; th~ Plannin~ Commission furcher finds and recomn~nds to the City Councll that they certify EIR No. 212 ts In compltance With the Caltfor~la Environmentel Quality Act and City end State EIR Gutdeltncs. Commissioner linn off~red Resolutian No. PC7fi-39 +~~d moved ror its passage end ~doptlon~ that the Anahcim City Pl~nning Cnmmission dacs ha~eby recammend to thc City Councll that Anaheim General Plen Amendment No. 1~+5 bs adoptad~ rQCOmmer~dtng that Area I be termint~ted from the Ceneral P1An Amcndment; that Area II needs n~ change from the extsting General Plan; that Exhiblt J(mod(fication of Exhibit H~ changinq the law density residentie) dusignatiun ~f thc~ nurtt~east r.orn4r tu lav-medium dcnsity residcntlal and thet portlon on Chaprr~n Avcnue to thc exi:ttn; cr.mmercia~ ~1eve1~-~+~++~•nr rn ~~n~rni r.~rmr~rctel designation) bc adapted for Area III; that Exl~iblt D(qeneral rpmmerctai) b~e adopted for Aree IV; that E~chibl t A(general commerclal fronting ~rangewcx~d Avenue end cor+anerclal professional an the southerly portion) ba adoptea for Area V; that Exhlbit (3 (tndusCrial) be adopted for Area VI; and thet consid~rr~tior~ of revision of thr. Circ~ilatlon Element of the General Plan be torminated fram General PIAn Amendmrnt Nc+, 145. On roll call~ the forcyoln~ -~solution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIOFIERS: ~~{t~~S~ QaviD~ tSERBST~ JOHNSO~~~ KING~ LINN NOES: CJMMISSI~INERS: ~`°~a:- At~SENT: COhLM I SS I Ot~E RS : . Mr. Schwartze expl,~(ne~~ •T.~t "„ ~lanning Dapa~tment Is going to change the format of the reports for the GenNr: ~~~~~- ~~~dments and would appreclate any crittques from the Comm(ssion. Commissloner Linn .n _~.-,~,• ~~-~ fclt it was important that the public underseand whac is being discussed~ ar~~ ~~+«*~=:,>i~,ne~ Oevid suggested thet a map showing the streets around the araa being cony ~•~~- -~-. *wuld be helpful to th~ G~onxnission. Mr. Schwartze st~-te. ~^^~• nian is to cssentially use that typc map Nith different color configurations. Chairman Pra Ten~re ~ar~st suggested~ regarding the landscap(ng in the canyo~ area. that staff should go out :r~1 survey the slapes which i~ave held during the recent ratns and suggest certain tyoPs ~` planLs to help maintaln the slopes. M~. Thompson pointad .~ut th:. Anaheim Hills is looking into this. A brief discussian was hel: concerning the slopes and grading ordlnances~ planting matcrials for the s'opes~ etc. ADJOURNM~I~T The~e betng no furthcr business, the meeting was adJaurned at 11:15 p.m. Resp~ectfully submitted~ Q~~ ~ ~~'~z~, Edith L. Harris~ Secretary Anaheim City Pianntng Cortrrisston cLH:hm 3/9/7~