The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1980/08/11~ Ctvic CsntR~ Anahetm~ C~lifornta Auyus t 11, 1980 REGUI.AR MEETiNG OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RFGUTAR - The ~egular mdecing of the M sheim City Planning Canrnisslon wa~ caliad MEETING to order by Chatrman Talsr at 1:52 p.m.~ August 11~ 198A In the Counci 1 Ch~omber~ a quarum being present. PRF.SENT - Chalrman: Tolar Cc~nmtasioners: Barnes~ Boua:, Bushore~ Fry~ Harbst~ Ktng ABSENT • COMM15510NER5; NONE ALSO PRESENT • Ronald Thompson J~ck Whlte Mac S 1 augh te r Jay Tttus At~nika S~ncati~hti Joe) Ftck J~y Tas h i ro Dean She re r Edith Harris Planning Olrector Assistant City Attor~ey ~eputy Ctty Attor~ey Offtce Enqineer As~istsnt Olrector fpr ZAning Asalttant t~lrector for Planning Assoclate Pla~ner Aasistant Planner Plenning Ca~nission Secr~etary PLEDGE OF - The Pledge of All~gisnce to the Flag wa led by Commlssioner Barnes. ALLEGIANCE APPItOVAI OF - Commissione~ King offered a motian~ seconded by Commlsstoner He~b~t THE MINUTES and MOTION CARalEO~ that the minutes of the meeting of July 28~ 1g80 be approved as ~ubmitted. CONTINUED ITEMS ITEM N0. 2 PUBLIC MEARING. lNITIATEO @Y THE ClTY OF N 6A YE D~GlARA710N ANAHEIM PIANHING COMMISSION~ 200 Sou~h Mahelm ,~~,_~~,_ . -80~ Bouleva~d, A~aheim, CA 92805. Pet{tloner raquests that property desc~ibad as a rectangulariy-shsp~d percei of land conaisti~g of approxtmst~iy 3.40 acres having a frontage of approxiniately 994 fset on the north stde of Lincotn Avenue, havtng a nyximum depth of approximately 147 feet and baing IoGated approxtm~tely 300 feet east of the centerltne of West4rn Avenue~ and furtha~ described as 3103-3165 Vest ltncoln Ave~ue be recl~ssifted fran the R5~7200 (RESIDENTfAL, SIaGLE-FAMILY) tONE TO THE Cl (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITEQ~ ZONE. Sub~ect patttlon was continued froan the meeting of June 2, 1g80 in orde~ for staff to studyr accesa fraa Lincoln Avenue and buffering fraa the nesrby resldent~ai uses to the north. !t wss noted that it has been reco~s~ded that subJect petit~an be co~tinued to the Pi~nntng Commtsston meecing of Sapcember 8~ 1980 in o~der to advartise ~ Aroa Devalopaient Plan ta be heerd oonjunctiveiy with subJect request. 80-y34 ai~ ~iao ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CiIY PLANNIN6 COMMISSION~ AUGUST 11~ 1980 8A•435 CONTINUEO 11'EMS (CONtINUEO~ ACTION: Commissto~-er f ry offsred s motton, •econdad by Commiasioner King and M~TION ~b~ that consid~~atlan of che aforom~ntloned Item be co~tinued to tha regularly- scheduled nretin9 of Saptsmber ~~ 1980 in order to adwrtise an A roe Davelopment Plan ~o bo he~~d conJuncttvely wtth subJect roqusst. ITEM N0. 4 E. TVE DCCLARATION FCl SI ION N . -81- • RACT N0. 11178 depth of approxirr~tely ;OQ feet, centerl ine of Or~nye Avenue~ and presently clsssifled RS•A-4j~000 PUBIiC HEARING. OWNEaS: EBRAHIM TALE81, ET AL, 27695 ToriJ~~ Misston Vte)~~ CA 92791. Property described a= a rectangulariy-shaped parcel ef l~nd constating of ~pproximately 1.0 acre having a frontege of approximately 150 feet on the weat side of Webster Avenue, hsvtng e maximum and being loceted approximetely 1070 feat south of the further desc~tbed as 715 South Webster Avenue. Property (RESIDENTIA~/AGRICULTURAL) ZONC. REClASS1FICATION RE(~UEST: RM-30A0 (RESIpENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. VAR~ANCE REQUEST: (a) MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DtiIELLING UNIT~ (b) MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE~ (c) MINIMUM RECREATIONAI-LEISURE AREA~ (d) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. TENTATIVE tRACT OF MAP N0. 11178 REQUEST; TO ESTABLISN A 1-LOT~ 20-UNIT CONDOMINIUM. It wsa ~oted the pet(tianer hss requesked aubJect request be conttnued to the niseting of August 25~ 1980 tn order co readverttse revised plens. ACTION: Commisstoner Fry offered a rrotio~~ seconded by Canmtssioner King and MOTION ~t ED, that con~ideration of the aforert~nt(oned item be continued to the ragularly- sehedu{ed meeting of August 25~ 1g80 in o~der to reAdvertise revtsed pians. ITEM N0. 1 PUBIIC HEARING. OWNERS: JAMES 0. BAKER~ 111 ANO EIR~ C TEGORICAL EXEIfTION-Cl.ASS JOk NARIE BAKER, 563 Paseo G~nedo~ Anahetm. CA 92807. • Petitioner requeats WAIVER OF PERMITTED LOCATION AND ORIENTATION OF STRUCTURE TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY DNEILtNG on prope~ty desc~fbed a; an irragula~ly•shsped parcal of iand consisttng of approximately 1.06 acr~s lacated at the southesst corner of C~~ron Rlm Roed and Paseo Gana~o~ having approximate f~o~t~ges of 30A feet on the south side of Canyr~n Rim Road and 8p f~et on the aaat stde of Psseo G~nado~ ~nd further dascribed as 563 Paaeo Ganado. Property presantly classified ss RS-7200(SC) (RESIDENTIAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE. SubJect petition was corttinued frar the maetings of May 5~ 1980. June 2~ 1980 end July 14~ 1980 for specific plans. There was one person indlcsttng his p~esenca In oppostcion to subJect ~equest, snd aithough the staff report to the Planntng Commissfon dated August 11~ 19~0 was not ~eid at the publlc heartng~ it is reforred to and msde a parx of the mtnutes. Jack Norris, No~~is Engineering, g59 Acapulco, Liguna 8each. explained h~e was advisad by the Planning Orepsrtment staff that the vari~~ce Is requtrad because of the conftguration of ihe lot and str~ets wlth Reseo Gsnado beiny defined as the front and Canyon Rim Road as the sisle~ regardlesa of the ortentatio~ 00 the hause; that the architect destgned the hous~ to fit the site end polnted out onlY n~tr-or ~rading -v~ll be necesaary. H• pre~e~ted a rendaring shawing the via~w of the proposed structu~e froni Canyon Rim Rwd. Hd stat~d p~evious vartsnces Aav~ bse~ granted fo~ stmllar sttuetions. ~ ~ ~ r MINUTFS~ ANlWEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 11~ ~98~ 80•~36 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CI.ASS 5 AND VARIANCE N0. 3144 (CONTINUEO) ..,.,......~..----- Hs rsfer~~d to Intordepartms~tel Cornntttae Condttton No. 2 r~quirtnq that tha property be plac~d in the Mastar Nomeaw~er~s Assoct~ttcM to guerantae slapa mstnte~anc~ •nd •skad that that conditton be deleted bec~use the a+ner strongly abJects to Jolning the ma:te~ essociatton beceuae it is not noce~aary ~nd encumbers the property and feel~ who~ver buys ths house wii) do a good Jab mstntatning the alopes e~nd none of the othar tots in the tract belong to the as:ocietton. Dan 5alceda~ ~epresenting Anahelm Hills~ Inc.~ 380 Aneheim Htlls R~ed~ statad Anshetm Nilis~ Inc.~ ts the lsnd developer for +~11 of Anahelm Hills and th's property fatls withtn the An~heim H111s Plennad CAnmunity. At the time thts parttculsr tract was spproved by the Planntng Commlssion and City Counctl~ it wes dotermtned that e certai~ ~mount of th~t arae would ramain es apen space. Anahetm Htlls~ Inc. is pa~ttcularly concernsd as to wh~ther or not th(s could set e precedent whtch Anahetm Hills~ Inc.~ the Planning Commtssian and City Counctl could not ltve wtth. He steted there are hundreds of proparty owners tn Anaheim Ntlls in this ~ame situation who could m~ke similar requea4s for a lot split and rathe~ frustrate the whole Intent af the pianned con~munity concopt. He stated those peopie whd purch~sed hanes In this trsct~ did so thinki~g there would ba a sat number of homes thern~ but if this request is approved~ that will not be th• case. Mr. Salceda ~eferred to Fast app rova) of tracts whe~e thr, open space was lettered and recorded as such in order lo m~ke sure thst It r+ouid ~ematn as c-pen space. He felt approva) of this lot split would be a dtgression from the condtcions of approva) establtshed by tha Plsnntng Commisaion as recently as two months aga. Ha stated Aneheim Hills~ Inc. is also concerned because thsy have nat seen the plans and p rosumed that the hous~ wil) have the same architecture) flavor as th~ extsting housas but it is poasible tt might stick out like a sore thumb, even though as an tndividua) unit~ it might be extremely ploasing. Mr. Saiceda raferred to the fact that the pettttoner does nat w~ent to belong to the master assnctatio~ and stated M aheim t~tlls~ inc. has made otfers to Mr. and M~s. Baker because thelrslope is not la~dscaped tn accord~nce with the st~ndards establish~d by the master asaociation to l~ndscape it at Anaheim Hills, Inc's.~ expense, but Mr. Baker has not slla+ed them to do 1t. He did not feel they have a~y assurance that the buyer ot the proposed daellt~g would landscape it p roperiy and potnted out tt ebuts Canyon R(m R~oad and is quite vtztble, James Baker, owner~ stated he has never been satiafted with LhE M~l the hllistde tooked; that the hill was landacaped and cov~red wtth flowers when he purchased the property a~d it slso had a sprinkle~ system~ but subsequently the sprinkie~ systen~ was ram~vsd and he was infnrmed by Anahetm Hllls, Inc. thst they wanted the stope left in a naturai atate. Ne felt this proJect will be a greet imp rovement and pointed out thG p~oposed drvslling will be in keeping with the hornes in that sree atth the same type Nood stding and it will blend in nicely with the hillalda and the slope will be las~dscaped. Mr. 8eker axplained he obJects to being p+rt ot the n~sster ~ssoclatton becawe the buyar would probabiy prafer to lendscape it himseit rather than in a fashion chosen by the a+ast~r essociatton. Ne stdted there is long history r~garding his attempts to get this lot lends uped and the submttted plan ts the alternattve he canie up with at greai expanse. He pointed out afcer Woodcrest !1 Nas -;~.^pletely butit. two other lots have been :ubsequentlY developed with ve ry larg~ .~,MpRS on a small parcel of iand and this p~oposed hane is baing place~d on a total of o~e a~r~. Ne pointed out a condaninfum proJect was rac~tly approved Just up the street ft~aa this property ~~d i t wi 1! be densely packed and he dtd not chink this p roJect would do ~nything but enhance the a~ea. ~' t MINUTES~ ANIWEIM CITY PIANNiNG COMMISSION~ AU4UST 11, 1980 SO• M 37 EIR CATBGORICAL EXEMrTION-CL11SS ANO VARIANCE N0. 3144 (CONTINUEO) THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. Chalr~n Tolar sscert~l~ad that the ~d)c+inin9 p roperty Is awned by tha petitioner aher~ his p~ivats residence Is loceted ~nd th~t the petitlon~r 1: attempting to spilt th• lot. Hi ~sked if M~. Bakar knwv the toning would not per~nit s lot sp11t becswe of density when h• pu~chased tha property. Mr. Bake~ ~splied ho was not aware the sonfng dl~ not permit a lot apiit and ~efe~ red ag~in to two houses bullt a~ smaller porceli. He explalned it w~~ not hts intent t o•pltt the lot when he originally purchased it~ and thts Is the plan he came up with afte ~ becomtng frustr~ted tryiny to flet the lot landscapad. Chalrn~un Toiar felt it would set a very dangerc,us precedent to approve this request and stat.d the Commt~sion spands msny hours revtawtnq the trsct mapa end approv~l would tot+~1 ly dastroy the concnpt of opprovi ng those troct maps. He wss nvt awar• of the housea referred to which were butlt unde~ simtlar cl~umstsnces. He felt this lot v+as laft because of the topography snd to eccommodate the power line easemrnt. Comnit~sionar Herbst egreed and state~l he hos bean very cuncerned about the axtra iw-ga pleu s of property which were designeted as open sp~ce ~t the public hearing:. He polnted out [he densitte~ were app roved with aervices plenned for those densities ~~d tnc~~asing tha densitY rvi i) create probtems for tha other h.~neavnars~ He was alsa ce~cerned becsuse some of the slopes ahich were supposod to be left have be~en cut to provide nwr~ lots. Antwering Chairman Tolar~ Mr. Salceda e~laln~d h~ pe~so~all, had written s letter to Mr. ~~d Mr~. Bake~ offering that A~ahaim Hllls~ Inc. wauld pay for the ls~dscaping and trrigatio~ system for thet slope. but did not receive a respanse. He stated the o ffer sttll sta~ds~ Me explained it is poasiblc tha l~rigatlon syatem was remev~d e+fte ~ the vegetation planted far erosion co~trol waa estebltshed. Chal rman Tolar asked Mrs. Baker i f the letter referred to was recel vad from Anat~eim Hi 1 ls ~ I~c. and she replted that they did receive the letter~ but v+ere ~~t wt{iing to •cc~pt the affor beuuse Maheim Hllis, Inc. requtres s pe-~nsnent esae+nent in orde~ to oame onto thel~ p~opcrty. She explained they h~ve t~lk~d Nith Anahei~n Nills~ Inc. o~ the phone and have written lotters explaining they would be happy to allew them to do the lartds eaping wlth a tempora ry easement. but would not giva a permanent ea~e~e~t. Mrs. g~ker atsted they awn ~lmost three ac~e~ ot l~~d snd thera are only fou~ houseti on tha stroet and thei n wes the lsst houso in Woodcrest 11. She did not thtnk the addttto~ of this one house Nould maKe thQ area excessively populated. She stated theirs was the o~iy lsrge lot in that tract and wa: exceptionslly dtfficult to build o~ whtch is vrhy Wastfield Development did not buiid on it, Coa~aissioner Ktng asked the purpose of the easen+ent mentioned a~d M n. B~ker answs ~ed AnAheim Hi l ls ~ Inc. wants the permanent easement to qo onto thei r property wnytia+e to do the landacaping and they are not willing ta encunbe r the prope~ty with a permenen t •aseme~t. Chai ~n Tolar asked i f the easeaient woutd be any di ffer~nt than a uti l i ty easement snd Mt~. B~ker replted a utllity easeme~t Is not used fo~ is~dscaping and they do h~ve~ ~ large uti 1 i ty e+senient~ but the uti i i ty company has not been c~n thei r praperty once. Ch~irmsn Tol~r asked if the 9~kers wouid be wtiltng to mstntain the lands wping if Anahein~ Hi I ls, Inc. cioes provi de landsuping and sn i rrtgatio~ system snd Mrs. Baker r~pl i ed they wo~ld.~alatain th• iandsc.~ping. ~/ 11 /$o ~ ~ NINU7ES~ AIiJWEiM CITY PLANNING OOMMISSIOIi~ AUOUST 11~ 19e0 E111 CATEGORICA~. E%EMPTION-CIASS S 11ND VAlRIANCE N0. 31~4 (CONTINUED) ._-._..._,.~.... 80-k~8 Mrs. d~k~r tt~t~d a v~ery larq~ condominl sim proJect Nas recently ~pprov~d on C~~yon Rim Noad r+hich ~hs did not und~nta~d if the Coimilsslon i• so conc~~n~d ~bout ov~rpopuletlon M Anah~t~n Hlllti. She felt thi• slnql• four-b~d~oom r~side~ce would add tr~msndously to th• v~ 1 w of t!-~ •~s and th~ h I 11 s i d~ woul ~ be be~ut t f ul end one r~~ i dsn~ vrou 1 d not ~dd wryr nwch to ths populatlon of tha ar~a. Co~rut~ston~r Bwho~a st~ted h• u~d~ntood th• origina) davslopa~ did not fl~d it f~asibl• to butld o~ the lot and polntad out ths Commissfon spends m~ny l~bortaw hours approving thess te~t~ttve tract maps and planntng for th~ w~ter~ poltce, 1'ire~ utilitiss~ s~w~e~ •nd at l ser•vi ces; that th ia is •n exceptlonwlly large lot ~ but ~ hov~e cen be bul l t o~ S~OOQ •qwirs fset a~d looktny •t the aver~ll picture~ lt would be dlfficult to deny so~eons ei~e this same prtvilege s~d he did not want to s~t a prec~de~t~ Ch~lrman Tol~r felt tf chi: was a bulida~ble lct. the origtn~l daveloper would hwe d~wloped i t. Mn. Baker ~tat:ed this is definttely a bulldabl~+ lot but wat too expantive for Msstfiald •nd th~y have ~-pAnt thousands ot dollars fo~ p~ans and stated the pr~cedent hat ~l~eady bN~ set In Wa~dcrest I1. CaMnissionar Bwhare w~s ~ot aware of any precedents being set In Woodcrest II a~d did not want to start setting pracedent wl th approval of khis ~equ~st. M~. No~rts e~cplainad thls Is not e r~quest fo~ • lot spiit becaus~ th~t haa ~lrsady ba~n approwd ~y • tant~tive parcel map subJect to the verlance and srsted this va~lanca ~~quest is to a) law a ti de Yard on C~nyo~ Rtm Ro~d. Ch~l nnan To~sr undentood this variance is necessary In ~rd~r fo~ the B~kars to bui id ~nd st~ted it this lot h~d been developed .,rlgt~ally this lot ~plit rrould not havR been necess~ry. Me (ndi~ated he hss empathy for the petttioner. It Nas not~d the Pl~nntng Olrector or his •uthoris~d representative has dete~Mined th~t the proposed proJect fslls wlthin tha deflnttlon of Cateqorical Exernptians~ Cias 5~ as daf i nad I n ps~agraph 2 of the C 1 ty of Anahe im E~vt ra~mantal Impact Report Gui de) l nes and ia, therefora. utegorlcallY exempc frowi the r~qulremant to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Con~missianer Bushore otle~ed Resolution fio. PC80-111 and movsd for its passsge an a tion thet the Anaheim City Pia~ning Caamissto~ dae~ hareby deny Petition for Vari a~ce 1~b. 3144 on the bas i s that i t caul d se t en undes i rab 1 a p racedent I n the Sce~ t c Corricbr Overlay tone. On roll ull, the forago~ng resolutio~ .+~s passed by the follaNing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, BOUAS, BUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBST~ KING~ TOIAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT; COMMi5SI0NERS: NONE Jack N'hite~ Asslstant City Attorney~ prasentea the petitioner with the w~iitan right to a~ti ~w ~P 1~ Cari ss ia~' a d~c~ ~ia~ w~ t~bl~ ~l i~s Lo t~1~e C i tY Coun c i 1. S/11/80 ~_ ' MINUTES, ANAHEIM C1TY PLANNINR COMMISSION, AUfiU51 11~ iq80 80•439 I TEM N0. Rf.ADVEaTI SE~ PUBL I C HEAR 1 Nr t aEQ~IF.STED BY BRA I LLE ~~~E DECI.ARATION INSTITUTE OF 11MERICII. 7-~i North Vermont Av~nua. . 2035 LOS ANGf.IES ~ CA ~t102A. A~E!ITs CHR I S A. MUSELlA ~ "~"""" """"""- 7h1 VERHONT AVENUE, L~S ANGEI.ES, CA q~A2~1. Petitloner requeste parmis:len to permit an •xpantlon of an existing privste educatian~l instltution In nn existing residence ancl retaln an existing recrsa~tlo~.~1 fteld tn the RS-A-b~~~~o 2one on ~repertY descrtbed +~~ a rectan9ula~ly-shaped parcei of lana consisting of approximately ~.~~ acr~ At th~ southweat cornar af C~escent 4vonue end Da1a Avenu~~ heving a front~ge of a~~proxlmatPly 72~ feet on the south s i de of C res cent Avenuo and ~ f rentage of ~ i f~~t on the we~s t s i de o} Dale Avenue~ having e m~x{mum de~pth of npproximetely 12!~ fn~t and hein~ ioc~te~ approximetely 14?. f~et west of the centerilne of Dale Avenue (9r~ilte Institute). P~operty pres~ently classifled RS•A -W3~000 (RCSInFNTIA~/AGRICl1LTURAL) IQNE. SubJect petltlon wes continur..d frcxn the m~!etin~ of June 3~- 1'1A0 at the requ~!st of the patitioner in orde~ to reodvnrtise to includ~ an adcittl~n~l parce~ end fran the n-eeting of July 14~ 198~ In order to ohtaln a ~ enqineering r~port. Ti~ere was one person indicating hi s presence In oppositlan to suh.)e~ct request~ r~nd although the staff report to the Planninq Commlsslon dat~d A~~qust 11 ~ iQq~1 Nes not read at the publtc hearing~ It Is referred to and mode ~ part of the r+inutes. Chris Musella~ eg~nt~ explalned Brallle Institute Is applYin~ ~For a conAftlcanal use permit for the southwest corner of North Qele and Crr.scent Avenue snd at the prevleus he~ring M r, 2artwra. eMmer of the propar4y adJ acent and south, object~d on th~ h~sts that ~ny Imp~ovements as far as streets~ gutters and sidewal4:s woutd onlY s~r~~ ;o shunt more water onto his property. In addltlon~ Mr, Zamore had Indic~ted ral~ water collect~d In the Braille parktnq lot is being pum~d ~~to hfs prope~ty. Mr. Musella nxplained a continua nee was granted to aliew Brallle to contrect a prfvate englneer to work wlth the Cl~y's Engineerln~~ ^~nartment to exar+lne nitiqattng circumstances. Ne stoted Braiile Insiltut~ i:~~~~~~' ~nto the matter in March~ 197q~ tn ~asponse to a prevlous campisint frnm Nr. Zamora •nd th~t Mr. Zanrora h+~d Indicat~~ nt the previous hesring that B~ai 1 te had not responded t~ him at sl l; howev~r ~ they v+orkeci al th the Ctty of Ant~hetm at that time and had Aetermin~d th~t they wer~ not violattnq any cc.ie~ Mr. Musella stated they contrr~ct~d McDantel nnd Assoclates ~f Anahelm anr! as tt exist~ ~+ow the land ts stoped such that any Water that goes out Into th~ strr.et will flow back ta those prope~tles because the land on the west sid~ of Dale Street slnpes in a southwesturly fashi~n. The bottom 1{ne of the Mct~aniel's report was thet unless permanent fmprovexn~nts were done, the water wl l t conttnue to slo~e t~ack onto those p~operties. H~e stated JAy Titus with the Ctty's Enginecrl~g De~artmenC had Informed hlm this week that the Ctty wi l l be instal l ing an asphai t berm connecting the improvernents whTch wi l t serv~s to shunt all the water to the st~est preventinn it fran floc~fnq back onto the properti~s and Bretlte Institutc~ wou'd have to extend thelr ex~t p~p~ 4 or 5 Inches to Insure it qc~es wel) beyond the berms so water d oes not exit on the westerly side of th~ berm. A. T. Zsnwra~ stated he ltves an the south side alung the parkinq tot which hss the dee~ well pump; th~t he talked to the 8rallle tnstitute Dtrecto~ and she infnr~-ed him the water would be re•routed towards C~esc~nt; that he felt the 2" pi•• ~ wi 11 have t~ be extended four or five feet rathnr than 4 or 5 Inches and expiained thc cont~urs of the area~Pc~intin~ out thcre is en a ~ea where water will stand and after that area is fltled~ the wstar wtli turn s~~ eontinue south to his property; thbt the pump tskes ali the undergrou~ad drainage fram Braille's prcperty to this berm and he d(d not understan~ hav this would work because weter cannot flow uphill. He stated a11 he wants Is no wster 8/11 /80 ~' MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CAMM~SSION~ AU~iUST 11. 19$0 8Q•b40 EIR NEGATIVE DECLAAATION AHD CON01 T IONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2035 (CONTINUED) ++~r~w~rr~~~.~~~~r~~~~~~ ~~~i~~.~~r~r~r~~-~w~.~ flawing a~to his propa~ty And st~te~d he does not oppoae the qood work B~a111e Institute dc~es . Chsirman To1ar aaked Jsy Titus~ Office Engfnee~~ to expl~in the pla~ns te Mr. Zamora because It eppears the only proht~n with this pro.~ect is this water and tha use is not a problem. Comml:sloner King referred to the er~ilia's lette~, Condttton No. ~~~ which Indicatee Brallte institute le prepsred~ in line with the reconn+~enrlatlons ~f th~ CItY ~~9~neer~s Oepartment. to extend the exit pip~ to insure thet existin~ wst~r wi l) flow down the berm and Mr. Muselle stipulated to con~plv with that requirem~nt. Jsy Titus explalnod the Ctty of Anahelm wt 11 construct a herm on th~ west side of Oale connecting the two axisting curh i*nprovRr~ents whlch wil l confin~ the weter wlthin the street. He stated a condition should be included that the petltlonGr wi 1) extend thdir outlet pipe to the berm end it may be feur or flvP feet. Chuirman Totar asked if the ptpe being ext~nded~ from r~n en~ln~erine~ standpolnt~ would be adequate end Mr. Titus repl led he fel t thAt rrould he adequet~e. Mr. Zamora stated he has msde a dT rt mound there And water gt~th~red Along the curb~ so he dtd not thtnk a berm would he adequate and added at l he wants Is th~t the wAter stay eff hts ~roperty. Mr. Ti tus stated the berm w1 1 1 be engtn~ered so i t wi l l work end i t wl i l not t~e Brat l le~s probtdn. Nr. Musells clarified the only other suggestlon ma~de by the engineer w~s a 3" pvc plpe 45~ feet long from the pump in the parking ic~' to the back lot ~n~1 then out to Crescent, but it would cost ab~ut S3200.~0~ plus theY v~ould have p~oblems wtth the CitY of Buena Park wtth the watQr emptying onto Cresee:nt going Into t~+ely draln~ge systde. He stated he hss dlscussed that situatton wtth Joe Q~Neil~ wlth Buena Park's Englneerl~o Dep~rtment and was Informed they would hav~ to have a hydrology study which would cost 51,100.00 fo~ a minimum tota) of S5.000.00 to divert tha w~ater over to Creseent, Canmisstoner King stated the herm wi11 be instalied at Ctty expense no later thsn October. Mr. Zamo~a stated the C i ty wa~ go i ng to i nsta i l s i dewa 1 ks and curbs for the seven unimproved propertles, hut two property c~mers did ~ot want i t~ so now there wi i l be berm and he was concerned about the ber-m hecause of his ov~m experiMent and the markings rlght now show uphill to the center af ~[he street and he has not gotten any answers as to how it can work. Commiss(oner Bushore felt the plan should be trled to see if tt would work. Commissioner Barnes asked why the Clty coutd not Rut ln the c~~rb for M~. Zamora if he is willtng to dedicate his portion of the property and Mr. Titus replied it would not be econanically feasibte to do it for one parcel end Mr. [emora stated trnprovtnq his p~operty wouid simply Just pass the wate~ on tn hi s nelghbors to the so~~th. Commtssloner gushore asked about the complalnt ftled wtth the Zoninq Enforcement Officer and Mr. Muselle explai~ed he bel~~ved a nelghbor di~ectty west of the beep•batl field complained about the nolse; that nothing in particular has been dor+e about it; that sevnral yeers ego when that neighbor ftrst moved in and complained, BraTile offered to ~hare the expense of erecting a b lock wall~ but he did not want to do that; that the ~oise 8/11/80 ~ MINUTES, ANANEIM CI?Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 11~ 1980 84•kW1 EIR NEGATiVE DEC~AMTION ANp CONQITIONAL U~SE PERMIT N0. 2035 (CONTINt1E0) ts nolsa of bllnd studenta playing beep-bail and wauld not b~ any more nolsy thsn living next to a perk on the week•and. Commisstoner He~bst noted the orlginal permit was fo~ 7n students end now khere rre 163 and aske-d wh~t the~ maxlmum number wl ll be. Mr. Musella stated the facllity is Just ahout to maximum at the p~esent tirt+e constdertng the slze of the butiding and psrktng l~t, thelr budgeta ry sltuatlon~ and size of the staff. Jeck IPubte. Asststant City Att~rn~y, explained thts requ~st relntes to the expanslon only and csnnot be tled to a cert~tn numher of children. Commisstoner Herbat stated the petitioners Are in vtolatton ~f thetr orlqinal condlttonel ~~e P~ ~ft because of the number of students. He stated he is not opposed to the u~e at all. Mr. Musella stated unfertunately Braille has been suhJect to the demogra~hic movement (n Orange C ounty and the r~sRonse to thelr Community eppeals and receptivlty of the Community to what they a~e trying to do hes really mushrocxned and they have grc~wn bec~use of Communlt y response to their program but not because they souqht to grow. Commisstoner Nerbst stated there is a cartaln number of teachers and students and a certain number oR parking stalls and asked what the potnt of saturatfon is. Brallie institute Dircctor Nanda hlale explained they never have more than 7~ students o~ the property at ~ny one tlme because they are transporteci to vartous progrnms; that they ere actively pursuinq two poiicles which wli) cor~taln the grc~wth and wor~ to get peeple (ndependent and out into the community. s~ stated p~esently they are opening a~ new voluntee r center tn Newport~ and heve centers (n Long Beach and Sa~~ta An~, Mrs. Hale explalned they cannot aceortanodate any mc~~e students and stated the 153 students are not there an any given day. Commissioner Herbst state d normally when a school such as thls is toceted adjacent to a reslden tial community~ the numher of students is 1lmited in order not to create a p~obiem (n the cammunfty. He asked that a maximum number of students be set and Mr. Nusella and Mr. Hale sttpulated the mextmum numher of students at the facility at any c+ne time would be 163. Canmissloner Ba~nes stated she is very concerned because of the water orohlem created bw the Bret 11a Institute and Mr. Musella's comment that they would be wi111ng to pay half of the cos t of alt~viating the probl~em and just now the same statement was made about a fence for the neighbor who complained about the nolse. She felt when an Institution such as this comes inta a neighbo rhood, it (s thetr r~spansibility to allevtate the problems~ and not thei r netghbors. ACTION: Con~mtssloner Ktng offered a motion~ seconded by Commissi~ner Herbst and M4TION ~D, that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit expanalan of an exlsting private educetionai institutton in an existing residence and retaln an exlsting recrea tional fleld in the RS-A-43~A0~ (Resid~ntiai/Agricultural) Zone on a ~oe tangulariy-shaped parcei af tand consisttng of approximately 0.60 acre lacated at the southwest corner of C rescent Avenue and Dale Av-nue~ having a frontage of approxln~ately 220 feet on the south stde of Cresce~t Avenue and a frontage of 95 feet on the wes~t slde of Dale Ave~ue; and does hereby approve the Negative De~laration from the 8/>>!8e ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING C~MMISSION~ AUOU4T 11~ 1380 8A•4M2 EIR NE TIVE DEClAMT10N ANO CONOITIONAL USE ~ERMIT N0, 2A35 (CdNTINUED) w~ wr~~~r~r~ rsqulr«nent to p~~p~r~ en envfronMental impact report on the basl~ lhat thera would be no ~1gnlEtcant Indivldu~l or c ~nul~tiva adveree enviroMnent~l impact clue t~ tho approval of thl~ Na~ativ~ Declaratlon since th~ Anah~im O~narai ~lan desiqnates the ~ub,ject p~ope~~tY for iow-density ~eslde~tlal l~nd use~ coimn~nsurate with the prapoa~l; that no se~~itive anvtro~+n~nta) impacts are tnvolved in the prapasal; that the Initl~l Study submitted by ths petitlone~ Indic~tes no etgniftcant individu~l or cumut~tive adv~ars• envt~omnental impactst snd that the Ne9ative Decla~atlon su~stantiatinq the foregoing findings Is on t11e In tha City af Anaheim Planning Department. Commisslane~ Ktng offered Resolutton Na. PCBQ-1~2 and movcd far its passaqe end adoptlon that the Anahelm Ctty Pl~nntng Commisston does herehy grant Petitlon fer Condltlon~) Use Permit No. zo35~ subJect to the petitioner~s stfpulatlon to extend thelr outlet plpe to insure that axisting water witl flow dc~wn the barm~ s~ required and sppr'ovRd by the City E~ginee~ and subJect 4o InterdepartmentAl Canmittee recemmendattens. On roll call~ the foragoing ~esalutlan was paased by the fotlowl~g vote: AYES: COMMISSI~NERS: 9ARNES~ BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ NER85T, KIMr,~ TALAR NOES: COMkISS1~NERS: NONE ABSENT; C4MMISSIONERS: NONE ~/11/80 _ ___ . . . W. __ ... :. ~ ; MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNINR COMMISSI~N~ AUr,USS 11~ 19A0 80-+~43 ITEM NO. Pu~liC HFAP,ING. AwNf.RS; HIrNI+FL NALLE~ f.T AL~ + E DECLARATION 2f,01 Ea~t ChapmAn Avenu~~ Sult~ in7~ Full~rton~ CA •,~ ~2F31. ARf.NT: WILLIA~~ DIFNL~ B~Yf.p EN~INEERINr, CO.~ •>> INC.~ 1A!1 Esst Muln Str~et~ Sulte il~, Tustln~ ~~~~~ RACT N0. 1117~i CA A269~1, Pr~~perty descrih~d aa +~ rect~nnul~rly-sh~ped percel of len~! c~nsl~tin~ of a~aroxin+rtely 0.77 ~cre having a f'rant~+~e of no~roxfmat~ly 15t1 feet on the south ~Ide of S~venna Stre~t~ hsving e maximinn depth of ap~r~xim~tely 21~ fe~t ~nd being loceted appr~xlmat~ly 350 fe~t west of the centeritne of Knott Str~~•t. Prnperty ~resently ctasstfted RS-A-t-;~~00 (RESIDF.NTIAL/Ar,RiCULTURAL) 7.f1~iF. REC~AS5IFICATION REQUF.ST; RM-3non (R~SIDE~lTIA1.~ MIILTIPLF-FANILY) t~~IF. VARIANCE RFQUEST: (a) MINIMI~M LnT A4[~ PE? DNELLINr, UNIT~ (h) M~x~M~~M STR~~fTIIRII~ HF.I~HT IEISUREIAREAS~(f)CM~NRMU'i~N1)HP,ERIA~(1t,TYPE~OFCPARKIN~TSPACFSi^( MIRE~I~~qF^CRiTTIf1NA~- r~ ~ 9) 5 E SCRFF.NIN ~. REQl1ESTE0 TEN1'AT1VE MI1P OF TaACT 1lf1. 11175; Tn ESTAR~ISH A 1-l~T~ 1?•UNIT C~NDf1NINIUN S(1BpIVISION. There was no on~ (ndiceting thetr pres~nce In oppositfon to suhjnct reQU~st, an~1 althouqh the staff rr.port to the Piannln9 Cor-misslon dated Auqust 11, 1~F~ was not read at the public heoring. tt ts ref~~r~d to and made e part of the min~at~~. 8111 Olehl~ Boyer Engineering~ stated Mr. Ha11e~ own~r~ is also p~esent. H~ explalned thetr proposal Is co subdivide this small lot on S~vannah St~~r.t to cre,~t~ a 1-l~t subdivision for a 12-unlt condo~inlum project and thev are hastcallv asi~lno for varlances whlch h~ve heen grr~nted In the past in that t~r~a; that the vr~rtance for minlmum lot erea Is for a sllght reductlon and the proJect is only 1/2 unlt over on th~ densttv as Prr as the overali grass area; that there is th~ variance f~~ maxim~x~ structurAl helght and there are adjacent single-femlly resldences; however~ the history of that nefQhh~rho~d is that mpst of the p~opertles are• bping dev~loped as multi-fAm11y uses and the rernalnina ones on their slde of the street wi11 prohahly a11 dtsappear relativ~iy soon~ potntlna out cwc~- story units w~ere recently censtrucCed across the str~r_t; tha! the vartance f~r maximum 91te coveraqe Is a very minimal ~equest; and he dld not feel the request for waiver of minimum landscaped sethack should be necessary bec~use the slnal~-famlly d~veiopment wSll p~~bably be conv~rted to multt-famlly In the near f~iture. He as4ed if th~ prlvate balconfes were included in the calculatlon for recr~attonal-letsure are~~ polnting out the request ts mtnimai, Re9erding the rarkinq spaces~ Mr. Dlehl noted the Code requtres 3•1/? parklnq spaces er untt a~d explatned they have tried to ~-revlde the parkln~ to the units and the staff report sho~~s 3o spac~s will be provide a two-car garsge ~nd two parkinq spaces (n front unit~ In arees wherP restdents wlll actually park next te slx spaces so they fee) they have provided more than 3.5. suc~gested if vehtcles a~~ to ~ t f P sprc~s requir~d In retattonshlp pr~vlded, but th~y will actually ~f each unit, pr~vidtng four per thetr unfts~ plus an addttlanal He indicated staff hr~d so the cars will be campietelyaaff therstreet~the garages~ that roll-up dao~s be Instalted He explatned they would be willfng to prevlde the 6-font high mesonry wall if desired. 8/>>/80 ~ MINUTES~ ANAlIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 11~ 1AA0 80-u44 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 80•81•4~ VARIANCE N0, ;1F3 AND TEN~ATIV~ MAP OF TRACT N0. 11176 (CONTINI~EIf) Mr. Oleh1 presented a r~nde~ing showing the proposed pre)~ct. He st+~ted Hr. H~1)e h~s t+~iked to eln-oat all the prc-pertY owne~s in the nelahhorhoed recently. THF PU8L1C HEARIN~ WAS CLOSfD. Aaststent Planner Qean Sher~r explalned the private helcnnles w~rr incl~~~e~ tn th~ recre~tiona!-lelsure area c~lcul~ttons. Conn,lssioner Bushore! f~1 t wl th three-bedro~m uni ts ~ there w1 1 1 h,~ chi l~trrn whn n~ed e place ta play. Commi~sloner Herhst dld not feel he ceuld Justlfy s~v~n har~lstil~s with +~ r~ct~nqulArly- shaped parcei and f~lt this Is a matter at overhulldinq the nrnpertv. Fle thouaht severa) of the waivers could be eliminated if t~e stTe of the ~roject Is r~duced. He ~sked ff th~ 19 fe~t ln t~cx~t of each gArage would c~nstitute a 1eQa1 parkine space~ t` r~ll-up doors are instelled, Oean She~er expleined Code d~s not Includa tanden spac~s hecn~ise they ar~ not Independently actessihle; I~owever~ the 1~ feet would alic~r~ a~1~~u~te roc~e~ fnr p~rkinq. Jay Titus~ Office Engineer, asked the Canmisslon'~ attttude rPg~r~11n~ privnte streets o~ parcels auch as these and rr.viewed the private stre~t revulr~r~ents. F!e expialned both the Planning Commtsston and Cfty Council ap~roved the privat~ str~et stan~fards after put~lic heerings. Chalrn~an Tolar stated the only reason for nllowinu any private streets ts h~cause of th~ trade-offs, but did not helievs there a~e trade-offs for this d~v~lopmpnt and the developer ls totally impacting the ~roperty hy overbullding the ~rejpct whtch is thr_ reason for asktnq for sm~ller streets. He stated hr. d~~s not intertd to chanQe his oplnlon that prlvatc streets should he no less than 2.8 f~et. Ne aiso f~it th~ Rw~~~n~ o~dinance ts a gc~od ordtnance and a lot of tim~ was spent to d~v~lep it. He stated he had revlewed the parking spaces propos~d and he would not count them; th~t t-+iS ~artlculAr street has a lot of preblems and he does not want to impact all th~ other provertl~s tn the area a~d would not su~port the proJect. C~nmissloner Barnes felt the proJect Is a lfttlr. ove~-bulit wtth 12-units en .77 acre and stated she has no obJectlon te a private street In a development tuch as this if ~t comes Close to meeting code. Mr. Dlehl stated they trled to get the street to 2R f~~t hut this is a n~rrc~, pl~ce of property and difficult to develot~ meeting all sethacks. etc. He stAted th~ density Is ~n economlc questfon that wnuld have to be answered by Mr. Ha11e. Commissioner Bar~es was nat concerned so much ahout the d~rnslty~ but fe?t the pro}ect Is over-butlt and she ~vas concerned about the variances. Mr. Diehl stated he did not feel the 3.5 parktng spaces requfrcd ts necessary. R/~ ~ ~Rn P~ ~ A~IAHEIM CITY PLANNINd CQMMISSION~ AUOUST 11~ 198~ 8~-4h5 EIR NEdATIVE DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 8Q-81•4~ VARIAfICE N0. ;163 ANQ TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 111~6 (CONTINUEQ) ~wr~~~~r.wn.r~~r i..~ Chal~msn Taiar steted the develop~rs and engineers ot these p~~-~ct~ d~ net h~ve t~ 11ve in th~se untts or park their vehtcles there And the Cort~n,isslon has hnd the exp~~iGnce ef atlc~wlnn less psrking and tremendeua prohle~ns hav~ h~en cr~at~d. Mr. Qieh) stete~f he llves ln a c~ndominium snd doe~ not hav~ onrkina tn front of th~ garage and p~erks 7 or a units down the street If he do~s not nark in th~ qaraqe end his guests perk 1/? mlte awsy~ which is why he feets this 1~ ~ m~~ch hetter p~rkin~ situatfen. Commissloner Bushore stataJ he hsd no problem with the size AR th~ unlts~ th~ structura) helght or site cave~age~ hut does have a preblem wlth creetinc~ 12 family units wich 3- hedroom untts beceusz tlie f~mllles w111 all prohahlv havr, chlldren wh~ wiil be pl~+ylnq in th~ pa~kinq aress or the atreet and some woulr! prohahly convert th~ir q~raoe to llvinc~ specR end Aarking would be a prohlem. Ile felt dpDl'OxImAtCly ~-~ pe~nl~ living an 3/~~ acre~ plus vehicles would be e prohtem. Ne st~ted the Comml~slon is wililnq to bend and weuld be r-we wi111ng if thesc were to be one-bedroom units~ rath~r than thre~e b~drooms. Mr. Diehl stated thls ail relAtes to denstty; and that th~ prnhlem ~f c~are~e cenversfons to livtng space can be regulated with Cf.6R~s. Chalrmsn Tolar asked if the petltionrr would like a vote or If he would prefer a conktnuance to revise the plar+s de~etiny san~ of the v~rl~nc~s. Mr. Diehl stated they would like a contlnuance to wor~ with Clty stA~f b~cause they havt spent a lot of time snd mdney on this proJect. Chairrr~n Tolar pofnte~d out none of the Conmissione:rs h~vr. heer, concerrted ahout the use~ but are concern~d about the varl~nces whtch relate ta the nu~*hcr of units. M~, Dlehl asked the o~lnlon of the tandem parking and Chairm~n Tolnr e~xplained at least flve of the Commissioners were lnvolved in pr~parln~ the RN-3~~1f1 ordlnence and spent meny hou~s con+Png up with what they tho~~ght werR th~ best ~tandards. ACTtON: Commisstan~r Bernes off~red a mot!^n~ seconded by Corr-Issioner Bushore and MOTION R Ep~ that consideration of thr. aforemr..ntioned matter be c~ntlnued to the reg~.~larly- scheduled n-eetinq of Auqust 25~ 1980 at the request of thc petitloner te suhml~ revlsed plans. 8/11/80 +~~: r:, ~ ~ > NINUTES~ ANNIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIISSfOM~ AUGUSt 11, 1980 80•qq6 ITEM NO. 6 PU9LIC HEARING. OWNER5: LESTER ElBERT. ET AL~ ~I~ItICA1.LY EXEMPT-CLASS 1 11881 M1o~tacito~ Los Al~mitos~ CA 90720. PetitiatHr D . r~quasts p~rmisslon to PERMIT TNE ON-SAIE OF BEER AND MIINE IN AN EXISTING RESTAURANT IN T~~E CL Zone on propePtr descrlbed as a ~ect~nguiariy- shaped p~rca) of land cansisti~g of approxtmetely .69 acr~ locsted at the southesst cornrr af Orangawood 4vanue e~~i Mountsin Vtew Avenue h+~ving ~pproxlrrNte fro~tagei of 113 f~et on the sauth sida of O~angewond Av~nue and 268 feet on the sast std• of Mountatn Vtaw Avsnue, end fu~the~ described a: 3ZA "E" East O~angawood Av~nue. Property presently classtfied CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE. There wat no one fndicettnq thelr presence In appasltlon to subJect r~quest, and although the staff report to the P~anning Cammission dated AugusC 11~ 1980 was not re~d a~t the public heering~ it la referred to and msde a part of ~he minutes. lestar Elbert~ owner, stated he la asking to~ a pe~n++tc to sell beer and wlna in sn exlsting Maxican-style rascau~ant to ba served with n+eals because thelr customer~ have requested It. TH~ PUBLIC HEARING WAS C~OSED. It was noted the Planning Oirector or hts autho~i=ed ~epresentativs has determined th~t the propesed proJect falla within the deftnltto~ of C~tegortca) E~mptions, Clas~ 1~ as deftned in parag~~ph 2 of the Ctty of Anahelm Environmentel Inp act Report Guldelines and is~ therefore~ cet~gorically exampt f~om the requirement to prepare an EIR. AC?'ION: Cnmmissioner Nerbst offered aesolution No. PC80-123 dnd moved for tts pessage and a~'op Ton thet the Anahaim City Planning Commissian doe~ hereby grant Petitton for Conditlonel Use Pe nnit No. 2Q96~ sub,ject to Interdepartmental Canmiftee recommnndations. On ~oll call~ the foregotng resolutio~ was pessed by the follvwt~g ~vote: AYES; COhWISSIONERS: BAR~lES~ BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBST, KING~ TQLAR NOES: COMMlSSIONERSs NONE ABSENT: COMMiSSiONEaS: NONE 8/11/S~ ~~ MiNUTES~ ANANEIh CiTY PLANNING CONMISSION~ AUGUSt 11. 1980 80•4a~ ITEN N0. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERSt LA PALMA BUSINE55 PARK, ~~VE OECLARATION P. 0. 8ox 63W8~ Or~n~e, CA 92667. AGENTs RIGHARO D. N E 0~ BROAQWAY~ P. 4. Box 63~8~ O~~nge~ CA 92667. Petitia~er requests permts~fon to PERMIT A BANK IN THE ML ZONE on prope~ty des~ribad es an Irreguierlysh~ped parcel af land consi=ttng of app roxim~lely 1.2 ecr~s located at the southeast corner of La Paima Awnue snd Whtte Star Av~nue~ havtng approximate frontsgea of 275 teet on the south ~ide oP I,a P~lma Avenue snd 350 teet on the ~ a t stde of Whlte Star Avenue~ ~nd further da~cribed as 2y00 East Ls P~Inia Avenue. Property presently clessifteci ML (iNDUSTRIAL~ LIHIT~D) 20NE. There was no o~e Indicettng their presence in oppositton to subJect request~ •nd althou~h the stsff ~eport to the Ple~ning Conwntssion dated August 11~ 198d was not raad at the public he~ring~ it is ~eferred to and msde a part of the mtnutes. Dick Broadway, representing La Palma Business Park, agent~ was present to answer ony questtons. He stated the hours of operatton ahould be amended to Monday through Thursday iQ:00 e.m. to 3:00 p.m. and Frlday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.M. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Barnes was concerr~ed about the ce~tar driverray on White Sta~ closeat to the east side of the property. She was co~cerned about people cutting across c~eattng a hazerd. Qick Broedway reviewed the plans wlth the Commission potnting out the circulation p~ttern. ACTION: Commissio~er King offered a motlan, seconded by Commi~sic~ner Herbat and MOTION t~D, that the Meheim City Planntng Commisston has rev(nwved the p~oposat to p~rmit e bank in the ML (I~dust~ial, Limited) tone on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land co~slsting of app roxlmately 1.2 acres tocated at the sautheast carner of La Palnw Avenue snd White Star Avanue having a frontage of 275 feet on the south side of ~a Palma Avenue snd a f~ontege of 350 feet on the eaat side of White Siar Avanue; e~d does he~eby spprove thc Negative Declaration fram the requirement to p~epere an anvironrnental tmpact report on the bssis that there wouid be no significant individual or cumulative adverse e~vironmental impace due to the approval of thts Nngattve Decl~rat(on si~te the M sheim 6e~eral Plan de~stgnates the subJect p roperty tor general tndustrial lsnd uses coetne~surata v+ith the proposal; that no sensltive envi~onmantal impacts are Involved in the proposal; that the initial Study submttted by the petttloner indlcates no s(gniftcant tndtviduai or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the Neg~tiv~ Declaratton substantiating the foregoing findings is on ftla in the City of M aheim Planning Departmant. Commissioner Ktng affered Resolutlan No. PC80-124 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commisaton does hereby grant Petition for Condttional Use Permtt No. 2097~ subJect to interdepartmental Committee recon~nbndattons. On ~oll call~ the foregoing resolution was passad by the follawing vote: Alf ES : COtiM I SS I QNERS = BARNES ~ BOUAS ~ BUSHOaE, FRY ~ HERBST, KI NG, TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NOkE RECESS There was a ten minute recess at 3:1Q P.m. RECO! NVENE The meeting was reconvened at 3s20 p.m. 8/il/80 E ~- MINUTES~ ANIWEIM CITY Pl.ANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST it, 1980 80•448 ITEM N0. 8 PUBLIC HEARING. 01~INERSt FRANCES M. BARTLETT~ ~~~I~VE OECLARATION ~11 No~th H~rbo~ 8oulevard~ A~ahetn~~ GA 92805. - 0. 20~9 AGENTSt CHERLENE J. NILLIAMS AND MAXINE M. SWAIN~ 940 N~ntucket Street~ La Habrs~ CA g0631. Petttioner raquests permisslon to PERMIT A CHILO DAY-CARE CENTER IN TNE RS-7200 Zone on p roperty deacribed as a rectengulariy•thaptd parce) of land wnststing oP spp~oximstely .23 ~cre having a t~ontege of approxtmately 103 feet on the west side of Harbo~ Boulavard~ havtng a maxtmum de~th of epproximetely 99 feet and being loceted epp~oxinytely 150 femt north of the centeritne af Wilhelmina Strret~ snd further desc~tbed aa 711 dnd 715 North Harbor Boulevard. Property preae~tly classiflad RS- 7200 (RESIDENTIAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE. There we~a fourteen persons indlcettng their presence tn opposition to subJect request~ end although the staff report to the Plenning Commission d~ted August it~ 1980 was not reed at the publtc heertng~ it ts referred ta and made a part of the mtnut~:. Chertane Wtlltams~ Q40 Nantucket Streat~ La N~bra, CA 90631~ stated studins shaw a need for a chtld day.cere faciltty tn thls erea ~nd the proposed factltty w~l! be maintatned to the htghest st~ndards. Maxtne M. Swatn~ 940 Nantucket Street~ la Habra~ CA 9Q631, steted thts wil) not slmply be a custodie) school~ but wtli be e teaching instttution; thet she has been teaching for 21 yeo~a and felt the youngsters wiil be given the best posstble environment. 5he stated they antictpate keeptng In the good graces of their netghbors. Ruby Lsckoy~ 716 North Ptne~ stated she lives directly ac n~ss the aliey from subJect property ar~d has seversl conc4rns~ one baing nolse~ pAinting out she tsught schoo) a number ot ~ears snd knows har noisy 50 thild~en can be. She was concerned that she would be aNakened at Gs30 in the mo~ning wlth trafPtc and chiidren. Har main concern was traffit since alt the treFftc has to be routed th rough the alley and the alley ts vary narrav in placns whcre tv+o vehicles could ~at even pase each other. She felt with 50 children~ t:~ere wi11 prvbsbly be 100 vehtcles tn and out of the a11ey eve~y day. She pointed out there are only flve parking spaces~ Ntth ftve employees~ and rvas concerned that pa~e~ts wtll park behind their garages if the area for unloading and loading child~en is fliled. 5h~ was conce~ned Por the f bPELy of the children with the congestion (n the a~~a~ pointing out the alley was not buiit for that kind of trafftc. She was toncerned sbout respo~sibility if there ar~ acctcients fn the atley since they hav~ to back out of their garages. She indicated petitlons hsve been submitted contafning spproximately 100 signaturas of peopl~ who a~e opposed to th(s request. Other persons present indicated Mrs. Laskey had covered all thefr concerns. Ms. Swaln stattd she did not blame these people for being ~pp~ehenstve, havever~ they will have a mi~(-bus that will deliver the youngst~rs which wiil cut down on the traffic. She ~tetod the house will be ccm verted into classrooms end wi11 be air-condittoned so there wil) be no need for the windows to be opennd and the notse wil) be w~tained. She stated they ere asking for a license for 50 chtld~en but that does not mean there will be children there all day; that they Ntl) be p roviding extended day-care and the y oungsters wouid be there from 7s00 a.m. to 8s30 e.m.~ then would bQ delivered to ~egular achools s~d the 5~ atudents wtll not all be arrlvtng at 6s30 e.m. Ms. Vtllieais stated the re wtll rtot be little children tn the ya~d all day. She Pelt the six-foot wdll on each side and rear of the property +v111 provtee s sound berrter; that the S/ 11 /80 ~^ MINUTES ANAHElM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 11 1980 80-449 EIR NEGISTIVE DECI.AMTION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERIIIT ISO. Zq99 (CONTINUED) - ---------•-- •mall children wtll also be in en sducstional proqram~ batng fn classa~~ taktng n~ps, •tc. and not ru~ning free all day. Ms. Swain stated cl+asaes are regulated ~nd rotate acco~dtng to age leva) and •dsquate ~uparvtston will be p~ovidnd outdoors snd all the studenta- will not be outside at th~ sama ttn~e. Ma. Willfams felt there ts adequate space for loadtng and unloading the chiid~sn and there wtll be o~e gate with hiqh sacurity. Mk. S~~~in steted pa~ents are not tnvolvnd in tha programs et thc tsciltty so additional parking is not necessary. TIIE PU6LIC HEARIt~G WIIS CLOSEO. Commissioner King pointed out on March 26~ 1g7~ the Commtssion tu~ned dawn e slmilar applicatlon et 605 North Harbor gouleva~d bacause of th~ llmlted access to the props~ty, Inadequate perking ~nd the htgh trsffic volume on Harbor 8ouleverd. Chairman Tolar felt this is a naeck d usn end vc ry admirdbla; howave~~ he had a tot of approhension ebout putting this use on Harbor Boulevard and noted dsy-care cente~s which have been approved 'nave had maJor problems w(th loadinq and unlQading and he has nevnr seen any such developn~ent proposed along highways such as Narbor Boulevard. He felt parn~ta wiil ~ot want to go th rough the alley and witl drop the children off on Narbor regardless of tl~e rules. He fe{t this use would alsa create a tremendous amount of trafftc th rough the aliry. Ne stated ag~in this type fecili~y is needed~ but telt thi~ is the wrong place and would be a p~oblem fpr the neighbors. He dld not think any place along Nerbor with the treffic and inyress and egrnsa wouid be auiteble an~! did not thtnk ingress and egress through an alley in e restdentia) area ls suttable. Commtssioner Barnes agreed and stated she is concerned about the citttena who live along the eiley and with only ftve parking spACes and five employees, even three cars the~e at ona time brinqing their children, would be s problem. Commissioner Bar~es offered s motion, seconded br f.ommisslone~ Herbst and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has *evlev+ed the proposal to permit a child day- care cente~ tn the RS-7200 (Reside~tial~ Stngie-Family) 2ane on a rectangula~ly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately .23 acre having a frontsge of approximately 103 faet on tne west si~le of Harbor Boulevard~ having a maximum depth of approximately 99 feet and being located approximately 150 feet north of the unterl lne of Wi ihelmin~e 5treet; and does hereby approvo the Negative Declaration from the requtren+e~t to prepare an enviro~mental tmpact report on the basis that there would be no significant ir-dividual or cw~ulstive adverse envt~onmental impact due to the approvsl of this Negative Declaration since the M ahaim Gene~al Pian designetes the subject property to~ laa denslty land uses comms~surate wtth the proposal; that na ~enstttve anvlronmental impacts are tnvolved tn thc• proposal; that the Init~a) Study submitted by the pctittoner in~dic~tes no algnlfi unt individual o~ cumulstive edverse anvironn+~ncal impacts; and that the Negativa Declaration substa~tiattng the foregoing findtngs is on file in the City of Anahalm P~s~+ning Dapertment. Gawmissloner Barnes offered Resolution No. PC80-125 and mcved for its passage snd adoption that the Ansheim City Planning Cortrnission does hereby deny Petition far Conditton~l Use Psrmit No. 2099 0~ the basis of itY Iimited access th rough an alley servictng a rasidential area and an the basi~ th~t H~r~or Boulevard Is a high t~affic volume straet. 8/11/80 ~ ~,.- _: ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINO CONMISSION~ AUGIJST 'i. 1980 80-p50 EIR NEQAT,~„ DECLAM710N AI10 CONDITIONAL USE PE~K:T !M. ~~99 (CONYINUED) _.....~...~ ..,....._....~.._.._~..... On rotl c~ll~ th• foregoing r~solutio~ was pas~~d by the followinq vot~: AYES= COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS~ BUSNORE~ FRY~ HER85T~ KING, TOI.A~ NOESt COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONEitSt N4NE Jack Mhit~~ Assistant CILy Attorney~ prm~ented tha pstitloner with the writtsn ~t~t to appe~l the Planntn9 Commisston'= deci:lo~ Nithin 22 dsy~ to th~ City Council. Ch~irman Tolar stated thasa type decisior~s •~e not easy for the Ca~nission to -naks, but the whole Ctty must be p rotected and he hnped the petitiane n wauid fl~d another' location fo~ thts m~,ch-neaded f~cf 1ity. ;~ l §"'. . . . .~, ~ .. ~ . . . . . .. . ~fi ~, , `) NINUTES~ ANAHEIN CITY P4ANNING COI~IISSION. AUQUST 11~ 1980 80'451 IT~M N0.~$ PUBLI~ ~~ ~ARIHG. OWNEIIS: Q1~9ERT R. IIErES, McDONALO•S ~~TTVE pECIARATION CORP pl~' ON~ 1096Q Wilthi~~ doul~va~d~ ~tbao, 0. ~100 I.os .I~s~ CA 90AZ~. P~titfAn~~ requ~~ts p~nuis~lcn to PERMIT A DRIVE-THROUGH IIESTl1URANT o~ proparty d~sc~ibad as ~n i~r~4ulariy-shapad p~rcel of land con~lstin9 af app~axirt+at~iy 0.9Q ~cre locatad north and west of the nort~wASt corne~ of 8a1) Rosd a~d Anahotm 8oulev~rd, havtna appraximate f~ontages of 147 ~~st on the north sida of 9a11 Raad •nd 30 feet on the west tide o~ Anahelm Boulevard~ ~nd furth~r dtscrtbed ~s 119 W~st Ball Road (McDon~ld's). Property presently cl~~sifled CL~ CH ANQ PlU•M) 20NE. There wa one pe n o~ Indicsting hi~ ore~ence In oppoaltton to sub)ect r~qu~ft~ and although the staff report to the Pl~:ning Cvmmisston dated August 11~ 1980 was not read •t the publlc haaring~ ft ts referrcd to w~d msde e pe~t ot the minutes. Gllbe~t Rayes~ representing McOon~ldt~ st~ted they ~re proposing to sdd drive-thraugh facilities to an existtng McOonelds' ond edd a dining a~aa with insid~ seattng and a freaxer nxtensio~ o~ thc rear of the butldtng. Mr. Layne stated he and his father own tha property +~d)ecent to the north of tlcDonalds. Ha stated ~e does not really obJect to McDoneld's improving thotr business~ but they heve hed a prn~~lem with the food wrappers and psper cups whi~h co~stant{y flow over onto their property snd thcy cantinuaaly h~ve to clean it up. He stated McOonald's keeps their own property ve ry clcan snd they cannot prevent thc wind fran blowing tresh anto hts property. but there is no fence or wsl) betwee~ the two propertles. He ssked that something be done ~bout thts problem. THE PU~i.I C HEARI NG WAS CLOSEO. Comml~sioner King askcd if t-~a petitioner would be wliltng to butld a wall. Mr. Reyns stated the petitloner would be willing to entertain the reca~n~ndstlon. Ne felt a six-foot fence is too hlgh. He also felt the dtning ronm w~uld vtrtually eliminate anyone eating in their car whlch h~s been the maJo~ sou~ce ot the debris. Commissione~ King felt a fence is the o~ly solutton to the problem. Mr. Reyes explat~ed again most of those p~opie whA ere na+ e~ting outside caust~g the xrash probiem wt I1 be inside and he fQlt probabty 70Y of the custa~ers wi 1) elther laave the premises o~ eat inside. Gh~irman Tolar indicated he is not opposr_d to the request and tn~ qht tha expansfon wil! make s ~icor facility; but feit • stipulst!o~ should be made for a fence along the north propetty ltne from th~ west p~opertY line Lo the back ot the existing trash enclosu~e. Gordo~ Groy~ owner~ st~ted ha has been netghbon with the Laynes for a long tiaie and appreclates tfiei~ kind words a~d he ~loes understand their QrobleR.; that there is • 10 or 15 foot eese.~nent fran Lem~n to Anaheim Boul~vard di rectly behind thei r property Mhich sepiratea thei r property f~om the L~yna's property end the peaple wf-o cwn the easeaiant afe planning to exerctse their option to open the easenbnt snd use it and when thsy do. it wi11 split tha separation whieh wi11 ease the situation of debris blowing o~to Layne's propnrty. Mr. Gray stated approxtrnatety 40~ ot thetr bwiness wi11 go through the driv~-through and another 25~ of the ren~ainder goes into the dining ~oom and psps~ o+~ the outslde will T;~ ; ~~ ~'k MI NUTES ~ ANAME 1 M C 1 T~f pLAt~N~! 1 tiG Ct~MMI SS I ON ~ AUOUST 11 ~ 19a0 80-45Z EIR NE6ATIVE DECI.AMTION AND CONOITIONl1~ USE PEIIMIT N0. 2100 (CONTINUEO) bt r~duced to about 1St. H~ d~d not w~~t to 4o to the expe~se of building ~ w~ll to rst~in popa~ fran e snyli aa~ou~t of thetr businees In the future. Ne belleved tM tituatlan cauld be handled w ry•asilY. Chatrman Toler st~ted he would not inst~t on a wetl ~nd thouqht the ~~pumsnt ts valid. F~ •ugpest~d the putitioner should maka a conc~ntratRd ~ftart to continue wh~t has been do~~ end compllaiented him on a wel l•ra~intatned tact 1 tty. Na felt ie is InKwrtant to try and claen thcsa thing~ up. Mr. Gray •tated ho and th~ McDonalds Corporotio~ both tnstst that the f~Cillty be kept cleen and he wt11 bnnd over bacla-~rd~ to make sure their good relatio~shtp with the Laynea contlnue. M~. L~yne stated tha Kentucky F~led Chlcken fecility next door to McOonalds h~s a ch~tnllnk fanca so th~re is no debris from thalr operatten. He stetad he w~s not asking for a wall specifically~ but wa~ted something to hold th~ movement of the Lrash. Conwnisstoner Herbst felt sin u the petitloner ts roducing the aper~tlo~ of people aating outstde~ he ~ould be !n favor of approvtng the requsst as is bece~esa the tommisston hss the right to raviPw the permit if complaints conttnue end can requt~~ the petitioner to consi~uck a fente In the future. He suggested app roval for a trtal perlod. ACTION: Commtssioner Merbst offere~l a mation~ ~econded by CortKntssioner King and MOTION CARRI D~ thet the Anohstm City Piani~tng Commisston has rev(eaed the proposal to permit a drivw th rough restaurant on en Irregularly-shaped parce) of land consisting of approxlmately 0.90 acre~ located north and west of the northwest corn~r of Ball Rosd and M ahetm Boulevard~ having ~pproxlmate f~ontagea of 147 tcet on the no~th aide of Bel) Ro sid ~nd 30 feet on the west side of An~heim 8oulevard a~d further desc~lbed as 119 West 8a11 Road (McDonald's); ~nd does hereby approve the Negative Oeclaratlon fran the r~quirement to prepere an anvlronn~e,nt~! impact repp~t on the b~sis that there would be no signific~r+! Ina~vtdusl or cumulativa adve n e enviranmenta) tnpact due to the spproval of thls Negatt vo Declaratton si~ce the Aneheim Generat Pian designates the subJect prope~ty for genera) camiercial land uses ca~nensurate with the proposal; that no :ensttive environmentai (~apacts are involved in the propasal; that the initia) Study submitt~d by the petitione ~ tndic~tes no significent tndividual or cumulatlve adve~se envlrorm~entei impacts; snd that the N~gative Declaration substantiating th~ fo rogai~g tindtngs is an ttle tn the CTty of M ahetm Planning Oepartment. Commissioner Herbst atfered Reaoiutlon No. PC80-12L ~nd moved for its passage and adopti on that the An~helm City Planning Conymissts~n does hereby gront -'etition tor Conditional Use Permtt No. 2100~ subject to review in one year for posstble exte~sions of tlme~ snd sub,jRct to I~terdepartmental Commlttee r•econrnendations. On roil cail~ the foregoSng ~a~otutlor- wss passed by the tollowtng vote: AYES: C0~1MiS510NER5; BARNES~ BOUAS, BUSNQRE~ FRY~ HERBST~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NQNE ABSE~IT: COMhISSIONERS: NONE 8/11/80 ~~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ AUGUST 11~ 19$A 8A-453 ITEM N0. 10 PUBLIC HEAa1NG. OWNERSt MILORED MARGOLIN~ 2~Op We=t ~~T~ICICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS B~I1 Road~ A'tE. A~e~heim, CA ~2~04. Petition~r . r~qu~sts MAIVER OF MAXIMUM NUMBER AND SIZE OF SIGNS TO RETAIN TM10 ~REE-STANDING SIGNS on p~ope~ty descrtbed as a rectangulerly-shaped parcel of l~~d consisting of spp roximaitely 3.7 ecres having A fro~ta~e of approximately 2~0 f~et on th~ south ~IcN ot 8a11 itoed~ h~vinq a maximum depth of approxlmstely 60y faet a~d bein9 loc~tmd approximately 10y0 feet v+est of the canterlino of N+~gnalia Avenue, Mnd fu~ther ddsc~ibed as 2~04 W~~t Ball Road. Property presently classifled RM•1200 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONf. Tha~a w~s no one indicattng their presence In oppositlon to subJect request~ snd slthouqh the st~tf report to the Plenning Commisal~n dated Auqust 11~ 19a0 w~s not read at the public heering~ it is rofar~ed ta and msde a part of the minutes. Mlldrad Mtargolln~ awner, stated they were ~ot ~wa~e +~ permit wes requtred when they h~d the sign Installed t~nd the tontng E~forcement Officer notlced It becauso son~sane sprsy painted it and they sent s men out ta clesn It; that the other sign {s very dark and has the s~me b~lck and blands tn Nlth the buildtng and is not re~lly nottceable. She did not think tt would be detrimentel to the area since this is not an elegant residenti~l •rea. She polnted out there is a nursery next door because of the utility lines and alto a school in the ereo. THE PU6LIC HEAaING WAS CLOSEO~ Commissto~er Ktng asked what other signs In the aree are lerger than this n~e. Ms. Margalin replied the nurs~ry sign fs very I~rge end thc nursery blocks the viar of her buiiding driviny ciown thc straet and her building do~s not have enough exposura and looks nqre like a single-f~smily residence tha~ an apartment becsuse the fro~t Is ali one-sto ryr and felt the~~ needed ~ stgn shav~ng it ts en apartment wtth the address a~d tel~phone n umbe ~. Chairman Telsr ~tated tt is difficult fof him ta vote for e sign v~riance because of the vauncy fsctor ahich ts lesa than 2~ in Anehelm; that unfortunately ever though tha Commission legally cfoes r~ot set precodants~ thay ara co~stantly confronted wtth pettti~~ers pointing out past actto~s and there s~e e tremendous number of other apartment owners who wauld want to put up si,yns. Ne statad in the pesr. the Commission hat allowed signs ta be incarporated on a monunant sign ltke the one she has rather than having separ+~te s t gRS . Ms. Msr9oltn rsked if she could sdd the add~e~s and phonn nunber ta the app~oved sign~ pc~int(ng out they do not advertiae vacancics. Gomniissioner NOrbst edded tha~e are a lot of apartments in this Cfty and if this ts approv~d~ other~s v+i11 be n+aking similar request~. He felt what the petltioner is asking for can be i~co~porated iRto that exisCing nwnument stgn and stay within the ordin~nea. Co~nn+lsslonar Barnes asked the sizs of the mo~ument sign and Ms. Msrgoti~ replied It is ~0 square feet which is alraady 10 feet ove~ the pern~itted si~.e and Oean 5herer~ Assistant Pla~nar~ explained enlY tha sign area net inctuding the base wss cslculated. Co~aaiisslor+er 8srnes stated sha would not ae opposed to increasing that stgn a~u to add the pho+-~ nun~ber and add~ess on the existing sign because It is nlce end blsn~ in. 8/ 11 /SO ~~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM GITY PI,AMNING COMMISSION~ AUOU4T I1~ 1980 80-4y4 EIR CATEOORICAL EXEMPTION- tlAS S 3/W D VARIANCE N0. 3162 (CONTINUEO) -------------------~-------. Chai t~nan Tolar di d not ee~ the nsc~~~l t~r tor the •ddress but dtd not w~nt the nwnwnsnt tl~n dlf~~uptAd •nd noted i t(s al r~sdy 10 feet ove~ Khat is ~) lav~d. Conimis~lon~r Bar~~s was co~co~ned that dente) would not p~rmit a v~c~ncy slg~ to be attach~d to tha •xl~ting s ign. She asked if the phone number and ~ddress portlon of the st~n oould be atteched to the bottom •nd Ms. Margol in repl led it cauld. D~~n Sherer axplained d~ni ~I of the varlence would be denlel of th~ new sign~ plut the exlsttng monument stgn. M~ sugqestsd the 15-square tooi sign bs dsnl~d and stat~d tha petitloner cen work wlCh steff to Incorporate the information ahe wants on the exlsting sign. He polnted out the monument sl~n is isrger thon Code •llows. ( t w~s not•d tho P 1 an~ t ng QI rectar or h i~ author) :ed representet 1 va het datermi ned that tha proposed proJect falis wlthln tho defl~itlon of Categoricel Ex+s~ptions, Cl~st 3, ~s d~fined tn paragreph 2 of the City of A~aheim Environmencel In+pect aeport Guldeltn~s and Is~ tharafore~ uCegoricat ly exempt from the raquiramsnt to prope~e an EIR. ACTIONs Commissioner ~arnas offered aasolutla~ No. PC80-1x7 and nbved Po~ itt passage and aaop`~Ton that the An~haim City PlanninQ Commission does he~eby gra~t the Petitlon tor Y~~I~rtce No. 3t62~ in part, permltttng Chr exl~ting 30-squera foot manun+ent stgn ~nd denying the 1~-square foot slgn~ on the bs~tis that the sign Is exlsting and de~lal wouid d~p~ive sub}ect property of ~ prtvllege being enJcrynd by othar propertles in the vicinity, a~d subJect to 1 nterdepartrn~ntal Commi ttee rocormrendet lons. On roi l cal 1~ the foragoi ~g resol utfon wes passed by the fol la+ing vota: AYES: COMHISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMiSSI0NER5: BAR-IES ~ BdUA5 , FRY ~ NERBST 6USIIOaC, KING~ TOLAR MONE 8/ i t/80 i~ b, ~ 1~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 11~ 1980 80•4y5 ITEN N0. 11 PUBLiC HEARING. OWNERS: MAGIC LANTERN INC.~ 1030 ~I R E I Vf OECIARAT I ON Mes t Kata 11 • Avenue ~ Anahe in~, CA 92402. P~t 1 t ton~r . ~equests WAIVERS OF (a) MINIMUN LANOSCAPED SETBACK, AND (b) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TO EXPAND AN EXISTINC MOT~4 on prope rty descrtbed at a r~ctengula~l~r shaped pa~cel of land conststtng of appraximately .93 ecrc heving a frontege at epproxtmately 150 feot on the south slde of Katell~ Avenue~ h~vinc~ a maxtmum depth of app roxinwtaly 270 feet and being locatcd approximstely 385 feet Qast oP the ce~terltne of West 5t~eet~ and further described es 1030 West Katella Avenue (Magic L~ntarn Fbtel)~ Property presently cle:sifleJ C-R (COMMERCtAL-RECREATION) 20NE. There wa= ~o one indicattng th~ir presence in opposition to subJect request~ and although the staff report to th~ Plannlny Commisston dated August 11, 1980 was not read st cha public hearing~ it is r~fer~ed to and made a part of the minutes. Bob Sholley~ awner of the llagic Lantern~ stated he is requesting s varlance for parking; that he has been in buslness since 1g60 and the property nceds to be updated by adding ~dditional units~ removing moat of the older butiding a~d putting on a new front, and b~tnging the prope~ty up to 198~ stendards; that at the prese~t ttn~ thare ts an overhang which only permits a 7-foot encrance a~d the Fire Depa~tment cannoL get thet~ equtpmsnt tn and he wants to cor~ect che s(tuatton. Regard~ng the park(ng~ he expi~fned exQertenGe has shawn the~e are two vehlcles for every three rooms rented or less and especlally since the energy crisis~ almost all guests arrtve by sir; thot this motel Is so close to Disneyland, guests walk or take the frec shuttle servi~e. He stated hc understends similar vartances have bean granted (n the past. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commissloner Ktng affered a m~tion~ seconded by Commlssloner Herbst and MOTION RIEO~ that the Anaheim City Planning Gommisslon has ~eviewed the proposa) to e~cpand an existing motel with walvers of minimum landscaped setback and minimum nurtiber of parking spaces on o rec~ yula~ly-shaped parcel of land consisting ot approximately A.93 acre~ having a fro~tsge of app~ximat~lY 1S0 feet on the south slde of Katelia Avenue, h~vtng s maxlmum ciepth of approxtmetely 270 feet a~d being loceted epp~oxlmately ;85 feet east of the cente~line of West Street; and does hereby app rove the Hegative Declaratlon from the requirement to prepare an envlronmental impact ~epart on the basis thet there wauld be no signiftcant individual car cumulat(ve sdverse environmental impact due to the approva! of this Negative Declaratton since the Anaheim Generai Pian designates the subJect p roperty for coim~erclal- recreational land uses ce~mnensurate with the proposal; that no sensttive envt~onn~entsl impaccs a~~e involved !n the proposal; thst the initlal Study submitted by the petttioner indicates no signtficant indlvidual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the Nagative Decleration substa~ttating the faregoing findings ts on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Depertment. Commtsslone~ King offered Resolution No. PC60-128 and mbved for its passage and ddoption that the Anahcim City ' flnning Cnmmission does hereby grant Peticton for Vartance No. 3164 o~ the basis that deniat would deprlve sub)ect property of privileges being enJoyed by other properties tn the same =one and vicinity end subJect to Interdepartmental CommS!tee rec.unmendatio~s. 0~ rol) ull~ the foregoing resfllution was passed by the Pallowing vote: AYES s COMWISS I ONERS : BARNES ~ s0U0.S ~ BUSNORE ~ FRY ~ NERBST ~ KING, TOLAR N~ES: COMMISSIONEitS: NONE A8SEN7: COMMlSStONERS: NONE 8/11/80 ~ MINUTES~ IWAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST it~ 1980 80-456 1 TEM N0. 12 PU9L I C HEARI NG. OW-~ERS t CASTI LlE BUI LOERS ~ LTD. ~ ~~E DECLARATION 166a Ea~t Llncoln Avenue~ Oran~a~ CA 92665. AGENT: 0. 111 8 ANACAL ENGINEERING CO., 222 East Lincoln Avenue~ _..~r~.~r~~~ ~~ .,_ E~ N TREES Anshetm~ CA 92805. Property desc~lbed ~s ~n i~re9uterly-sheped percel of land consisting of approxtmately 4.6 acres having a frontage of approximately 750 feet on the south side of Martella lane~ having a maximum depth of approximately 300 feet~ and bei~g locsted epproxtmataly 720 feet sauthasst of the cente~llne of Sa~te A~a Canyon Road. Prape~ty ~resently ciassifted RS-A•4j~00A(SC) (RESIDENTIAL/AfRICULTURAL) 20NE. T MCT REQUEST: TO ESTABLISH A 9-LQT~ RS-HS-22~000(SC) SUBDIVISIOt~. TREE REMOVAL REQUEST; TO REMOVE 33 SP~CIME1~ TREES. Thero was ona person indicating his presence in opposltlon to subJect request. and although thc staff report to th~ Ptanntng Commission datc~' August 11~ 1980 was not read et the public heartng~ it Is referrad to ~nd nade a part of the minutes. Cal Quey rol~ Anacel E~gincertng~ ~epresenttng Castllle 8uilde~s~ LTU., wes present to an~wer eny questions. He stated al) lots do canform to st~nderds end the trees to bc ramoved wtil be repleced with specimen trecs. Paul Msrtin, stated he owns five acres adJac~nt to the development site cur~ently under canstruction; thac he has no p roblem with the reclassification~ but Castflle BNtlders has five acres edjacent to Marteila Lane end their greding plsns cell~ed for 20-foot elevations of natural terreln but they butlt two-sto ry English-style houses so he no longer has a view; thAt they did illayal grading on County property and ex~lalned he and four other homeawnera collected epproximetely S5,000 to put in Martin Ro~d and Mertella Lane; thet Mr. Larry Wllllams and Gary Jones of Castille Builders said they would help with the road, and in 1977 a resolutlon was passed by the Pianning Commisslon to keep Martin Road ~s a 20-foot access point; that L~rry Willisms from Cestille Buiiders asked htm ta deley construction of the road which he did; chst thetr proJect started in 1978 a~d there are stllt cao homts for sale on M~rtln Road off Santa A~a Canyon Roed; that Castilie offered tha five p roperty owners S1.500 because th~y had done their grading;that thay cut five feet off his embanknxnt without a grading permit and detoured the slope and he nav hss three feet of erosion on h!s property. He falt hc a^d the other property awners have al) been shafted because of the erosion~ end *~artelle Lane Is turned into a waterway. He stated Casttlle Builders dug ~+vimming pavis and dumped the dtrt right in the channe) which was the natura) watercou n e there and nav they hsve filled tt and chenged the embenkment so that he and his neighbors a~e getting al) the water; that Kartella Lane ts not developed and Ff the gradtng is not done prop~erly, the road Nili be gone. He stated tha only thtng he has agalnst the project ts the wate~. He stated there is iilegal dumping of water from Oaens Drtve into Martelle Lane end w4~en it ralns~ they cannot get through. Ne folt he actually h~s s leyal clatm agatnst Csstille. He ~eferred to slide problems in Anahelm Hills end Santiag4 and pointed out the tsxpayers have to pay for the problems once the developc~ has finished the proJect. Ne stated they hae-e the rtght to develap the property~ but did not think they should be ailowed to move the mc~untains around. Hank Rivera~ 6283 East Rto G~ande, stated his oppositton is to the ramoval of trees; tha~ he ~evi~d plans when he lived in the t9ohler D~Ive area and was Prosident of the homeowne n assoclatlon and was assured the voater runoff wouid no~ be a detriment to the adjacent projoct and naw it appears that somebody has fsilen down o~ their Job. He urged the Commtssion and Council to follar up thtse gradin4 p roblems. Hm stated that when H11) ~ , , NI NUTES ~ ANAHE I N t I TY ~UUNI I N6 COMMI SS I ON ~ AUGUST 11, 1960 80-457 E I It N6tiAT1 VE DEtLAMT I ON . TENTAT I VE MAP OF TMCT NO. 11158 AIID REQIJEST FOR REMOVA~ OF SPECiMEH TREES ~CORTINtJEO) ..._....~..~_.~..~_~~. _......._.._.._. ~~d Ca~ryron Advl~ory Co~ttt~e wa functlonal~ tM~~ Ner~ probl~a+~ Nith'p~ople ~~awving sp~ci~~ t~MS rfilch ~ault~d ln ••pectal ordinance. He also want~d to prewnt th• type ot runaff vfilch Mr. Ila~tin now has. Mr. Querrel st~ted he could not answer pravious gredf ng problems beuuse he wst not involv~d and Gary Jones i~ out of tow~ today e~d the •rchitect ts not p~^se~t. He felt this tract t~hould be treated at •n independent issue a~ Its own nwrics. Ma statad he would be happy to meet with the proJect owners to see what the problenis ara rec~arding the e ros i on . THE PUBIIC NEARIt~G WAS CLOSED. Chairman Toier did not agrec with Mr. Queyrel enttrelY although he ag~eed this is a good ufe of the la~d. Ne st~ted he wss o~ the Con+nission in 1977 wh~en this particular Ingrest ~nd ogress into this area was dlacussecl an~ felt unless thta problem is resolved hv-~ before fu~ther develoment occurs~ it wtll be compounded~ pointing out the davelopment is by the same company. Ha felt thts ts a ntce p~oJect and hc could suppo~t it If Lhe problems of gradtnq~ drainag~ And access a~e resolved at this ~ime. Mr. Queyre) asked for e cantt~uance for Mo weeks in o~d r thet questio~cof prevtous actlans could be answered. Commissloner 8arnes requested that an explanation be made at the ~ext meeting relating to the dumping~ atc. and M~. Quey~el re;lied he would llke the matter cleared up; that he had drive~. onto the property a~nd felt there shoulci be some work dawn on the road. Chalrman Tolar suggested the petitlcm er meet with Mr. M~rtin to rosalve these problems before the next meeting. Commissia~er Bushore stated he has traveled this roed before and has anxtously awaited for proposed development to be submltted in order to improve the situatlon and as soo~ as he saw ~hese plans~ th~ught nav i~ tha time to take ca~e of the p roblem. Ne was alao co~cerned when butlders abusa their contractor's rlghts end other property owner's rights~ and believed that does include land usc and is the Conmission's responslbility and the Building. Planntng or Lega) Depa~tment should respond in some reaso~~ble fashfon even though the problem may ba between the ~edJacent property ownar and builder. He felt the~e Is a mor~) obligation to respn~d to citirens complaints bac~use the Ca~nisslan does serve the citixens. Commissioner Bernes stated Anaheim Hilis haa had less slippag~ than any o:h~r area in tha Gounty and felt a good Job has been done. She explatned the slopes sre maintsino~ by the homea-mer's associations which is pa~id fo~ by the people who live there a~d not other taxpaysrs. Sho stated to the opposition if they ever have a con~ialnt and cannot get ~etiafactton from the City~ they shovld u 11 he~. Commisslaner Herbst stated he wouid h~Ye ~~refarreci to see publlc streets in thts srea so the City would have the necessary control. but the Reople who live there insiated on p~ivate st~eets. ACTtON: Commisstoner King offnred a m~tian~ secanded by Commlssionrr Barnes and MOTtON ~0~ that constderation of the afo~amenttoned item !r~ continued to the meRttng of August 25r 198~ at tht request of thc pettttoner. Waimisaioner Barnes potnted out no n~w notices will be sent regarding the August 25th aisat i ng. 8/11/g0 ~,: . MINUTES~ IWIWEiM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 11, 1980 80•458 ITEM N0. 1 PUBLIC HEAa1NG. AITERNATE PROPOSALS OF ULTIMATE AL IMp ACT REPORT N0. 2 LAND USES INCIUDING BUT NOT LIMITEO TO SINGIE AND NE L DM N 0. MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL QEVEtoP-~ENT for ~~ ~ r~.~~ ~pproxin-~tely 13.4 acres located un the south side of Rlo Grande Orive epproximately 420 feet west of the centerltne of Falrm~nt 8oulevard. There were epproximately twenty persons tndtcating their presence tn oppo~itlon to subJect raquast, and although the steff repart to the Plenntng Commi~aton dated August 11~ 1980 was not raed at the public hearing~ it Is referred to end made a pert of the minutes. Jay Yeshtro, Associate Planner~ prescnted thc steff repo~t to the Ptanntng Commlssion dated August il~ 1~80 nating Gmneral Pien An~n~nt Mo. 158 is a requeate~i amendment to the Lsnd Use Elcment and ts property• auner (nittated to change the current Nillside Estate Density d~siynetlon to Hillatd~ Low Denaity to develop e townhouso-condominium profect on approxtmately 13.4 ac~es locatad on the sauth sida of Rlo Grende D~tve approxtmately 420 feet west of the u nterline of Fsirmont Bouleva~d; that approxtmately one acre of Lhe stucly area fronting on Rio Grand~ Drtve is currently zoned RS•FIS-10~000(SC) and the remslning 12 ecres is zaned RS•A-43,000(SC); that in 1977 the Ptanntng Commission approved a tentative tra~t whtch consistad of three RS-HS•10,000 lats and 11 RS-HS-2T~p00 lots; hvwever~ that particular tract map expirQd on June 5~ 1980. Su~rounding land uaes intlude a single-famtly trect (RS•HS-10~0~1Q(SC)) and undeveloped land to the north, undevelaped land (RS-A-43~000(SC)) to the east~ approved single-famtly tract (RS-NS-22,000(SC)) to the south, and a single-famlly rGStdence (aS-HS•1-3~Q00(SC)) and single-femily trect (RS-kS- 10~000(SC) to the west. He potnted out the policy conp arison in the staff report be Meen the extsting Cenyon Area General Plan and the pstittoner's proposal. He elso pointed out the two e~chtbits on the wall~ one belny the adopted Gen~ra) Plan shawtng lav de~sity and estate denslty desi~nation. The rtu~xtmum denstty for estatc density would ba up to 1.5 dreiltng untts pe~ gross acre and low density Is up to 5~~11ing units pe~ gross ecre and the meximum numbe~ of ~lwelling untts which could be built on that property would be 25 units. Typically thase would be implemented by single-femtly designatlon; ha+ever~ the Canyon A~ea General Plan does permit ttusiering and a condaminium or townhouse development would be permittad pravided the mnximum density ranges do not exceed the maximum density ranges. Exhibit A is the pGtittone~'s requested ~xhtbtt and besically they are requesttng hlilstde•lar- density and the meximum denstty permitted would be 67 u~lts. Mr. Tsshiro continued the petitloner proposes to develop a tavnhouse proJect consisting of s maximum of 65 dwelling units whtch Is approximately 4.9 dwelli~g untts per gross scre. If the exhibit is approved, the petitloner proposes to seek the RM-3000 zoning and tentattve tract approval to develoR 58 to G~- units. Subsaquent to the revi~r of the p roposed amcndmcnt by various City Departments, the Water snd Elect~ical di~vistons indicate that adequate water and electrical service can 6e provided ta the subJect development; hawever~ the sizing of the Diemer Intertte was besed an the Canyon Area Genera) Plan adopted in 1~77 a~-d if greater densities requiring additional water supply are apprayed. t~hen either an additions) water supply source wil) have to be obtatned or oth~~ areas n+ust be developed with den~ities and water demands less than orlytnally anttcipated. The proposed development will increase the electrical energy and demand and the cumulative approval of similar developments wlll ulttmately result in the need for additional substation oonstructio~~ a~d extension of electricsl ft~cilities and support activities in this general area. a~> > iso ~ MINUTES. ANANEIM CI1Y PLANNING COMMIISSION~ AUGUST 11~ 1980 8t?•459 ENVIRONMENTIIL IMPACT IIEPORT N0. Z37 ANO GENEMI PLIW AMENDNENT N0. 158 (CONTINUEO) -_....__...._~ ._.........--- -~----- ~_._...,._.._._.. M~. Tasht m stated the text of the C~nyo~ Are• Ge~erel Pl~n states that "schlaving the goais and ob)ectives Is predicated upon the dw~llinq unlts per atre estsbitshad on the Nlan M~p. T"he=e heve bean detormined b~sed o~ the hillslde neture of the are• snd the unlqup g~ogr~phit feetures of tho Car+yon Aree." Furthermore~ It states "the maJor (ntentlon of the Plan is that these dansity rsnge~ not b~ exceeded." The tentstive tract on subJact property was arigi~eily approved by the Commisslon ~nd the~ in 1973 the Commissto~ tnttlaCed ~ ~eclesslflcetion for epproval of ~22 screa (M~hler Orive Area) for half-acre lots. A sm~ll partlon of the stuciy area~ aa well ss the extsting single-family tract to thn rwrth of the subJetc pro~rty is cu~rentiy designeted es fllllslde Low Danslty Residential. Thc Plenning Commissicx~ wili wish to determine whethcr the propoued General Plan Amendment permic~~ng law density residentlel land uses (up to 5 dweiling units pe~ .~c~e) Is approprtate for thc sub}ecc praperty. Richard Refenovic~ Orange Crest Corporatlon~ 13G0 South Anaheim 9oulevard, M ahelm~ stated they are requesting consideration to allaw a lend usc almllar to the lsnd ~,se that exists on cho frunt portion of the percel f~r che belance of the parcel as sharn whtch ts etsentially the same land use as to the east and west. He presented photographa of the existing site and an a~risl photogrsph of the site showtng the sur~ounding land usns. He steted this ta e u~ique parcel and cans(sts of a canyon Wlth Mo barrancas; that the surrounding p~operty is on top of the bluffs and this is the b~ttom of the canyon and Is st~eltered from vl~w and does not impact thc surrounding propsrttes visuslly o~ physically. H~e felt thetr proposa) is unique and ls not gra+th-inducing bec~use the surrounding propertles are already developed; that the parcel in front is conr+~erclal and the subdlvtsions to the east and west are already developed and the subdivtalon ta the south Is naw under constructlon and has been shcitered from this property with tha layout of the st~ert aystem and orlentatinn of the houses; that their proposel Is to work with tMese ccm dttlons and const~uct resldential untts w(kh essentlally the same bullding pad area as edJacent dweliing units a~d provlde equal or larger open spaces~ and they wtll connect and provtde a trat is system that ia now missing. Ne stated chey may have to ciuster son+e homes~ have some cortnan driveways~ snd a honk aNner'a associatian to msintaln the open speces to provlck a consistent and pleasenc ~ppearance; that they dre not proposing Co build rvw houses and really dtd not beli~ve there Is a ckslynetlon that wili adequately portray wh~+t they ere t ryiny to do; which Tsto construct homes compattble with existing developments. The propose) ts essentlally (ncluded In the provislons of the General Pian and no speciftc plan Is being presented at this tirt~. He stated they do have some aketches and displeys which may help but ultin-etely wtlt construct only wfi at ts permitted. Mr. Rafanavic stated they want the Cortmission and netghbo~a to know that they want to become part af the community and be good neighbora~ but want the Commisston to tske into wnsldaration the phystca) characteristtcs of the site, noting it Is at the bottan of a cs~yan and he did not balieve it will be growth•inducing and wouid not be precedent setting~ a~d would not unfevor~bly impact the adJacent areas and woutd eltminate a nuisance thts parcel naw presents. He believed this type developmant is ~mpsttble with the Housing Elament of the General Plsn. Henk Rivers~ ~283 East Rto G~ande. Aneheim~ stated he is President af the Pepper Tree Hlil Nomeowner's Associetlon which is affected by this development. Me pre~ented a letter from the Ss~ta Ana Cam-on P~operty Owner's Assoctation and one from the Canyon Flilis Estates Hoiaeavner's Associ~tion reprasenttng the p roperty dircctly to the south; and also a 2$1- signature petitian apposing the proJect. He stated his home and driveway ere dir~sctly oppo~ite the propc~scd entrsnce to this development. He referred to the Mohler Drive Plan to i~oorporste est~te-sized lota th roughout the Scenic Co~rtdor~ and sta~ted the develope~ snd the EIR makes mention that this ts ~ot a precedent setttng ection, but he disagread g/11/80 ~ ~, ~..' MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNtNG COMMiSS10N~ AUCUST 11~ 1980 80-460 ' ENVIR,ONMENTAL IMpACT REPOaT N0. 231 AND GEHEML PLlW AMEtiDMENT N0. 158 (CONTINUED) ~~ ~ ~ and referrad to pege 42 of the EIR ~~d ~tated surrou~ding adjacent prope~ty ls RS•HS- ~ 22~OOQ. Ne notsd past experie~ce with the H111 and C+~nyo~ area prove~ that when one ~ p roperty is rozoned or e GPA Is approved~ the door ts opened for rezoning of eva ryrthinq ~ else. Ha thouyht the property di~ectly to the south of the proJect is ~lso vwned by ': Orange Crest and by Mr. Rafanovic ~eaponded that they do not own the referencad property. € Mr. Rivera sta~ted one of the maln feeder~ is Fsirmont Boulevard enQ t~effic would be i tremsndously increesed with the approvAi of thts project. He noted no signals are planned for Fatrnbnt Boulevard and Santa M a Canycn Roed or Falrnbnt a~d Rto Grande. He slso did ~ not believe the topogrephy of the area wiil handle this many homes end was also opposed to the numbe~ af trees thet wil) be removed. He ateted the EIR incor~ectly reports the denstty of the surrounding areas which is 89$ half•ac~e estates with only a small portta~ of RS-HS-10.000 lots. Also~ he felt the proJect wt 1~ advenly tmp~ct the view~pointing out hia vle.w wi li be affectad. Ne stated they ara tremendously opposed to this proJect and do not want to rezone the property. He noted the Task force sp~nt e lot of time cx~ the pls~ far this area and pointed out there is a lot of vacant property in the aree end he did ~ot think the Commission coutd deny rezoning of those propRrttes, If this is app roved. Mr. Rtvera statad the~e is a wster problem end the fIR menClons lt can be handlad now~ but any future approvat would requlro additional water supply. Willtam a. Brown~ G290 East Rio G~ande. stated hls property Is right In the middle of the slte and he obJ~scted to having the zoning of his property changed since he Is not the petitioner~ and was not sure if a zone change w~uld be to his advdntage, but would r~ther oppose tt because hls property would bn u~iquniy affncted with a zone cha~ge on surrounding property and felt it would adve~sely affect the peace and enJoyment of his home. He asked the Commissicm to deny the ~equest. Otto Nenning~ stated he owns four acres contigunus to tfre south aF su~]ect property and that he had origlna~ly vwned and sold about 80~ of the isnd on the south including these 38 ac~es betng devel~ped into 50 lots. He obJ~cted to rexoning the property and developing condominlum and multt•famtly units because: he fought ha~d to get this whole aree zoned fo~ 1/2 acre lots. He felt with all this development there will be a fire haz3rd and noted during the '6ES fire, hfs home wes surrounded 75$ by fire. Sill Hoffman~ 5262 Rio Grande~ stated he opposes this proJect beu+use the main ent~ance and exlt will be on Rio Grande ond a plan has already baen ~spproved for tomnGrcia) developmcnt at the corner of Santa M a Canyon aoad~ Fai rniant 9ouleva~d and Ria Grande croating a traffic impact and he feli 65 tondominiums at subJect locetion will make Rio Gra~de like a freeway. Ne stated he would rathe~ see 1/4 acre developments tn thts erea with less traffic. Jack White left the meeting at 4:45 P•m. and Mac Slaughter assumed the City Attorney's Ghai r. Jim Beard~ 231 Rive nvood Circle~ stated his proparty ts not ~irectly affected~ but he is appased to the proJect because 65 units will increase the traffic~ with about 600 more cars on Quinte~a bec~use most families have three ce n today. He stated he is under the improssion that it could be ten yea~~s before Fairniont crosses tne freeway and sdding 10Q0 ce n on Ssnta Ane Canyon Road will.create sdditio~al probiems. Mr. Beard stated water stsnds on Quintana now when it rains~ poin~ing out 12" of ~ain was standing on the road durtng ths heavy ralns and he felt the~e wtl) be additional water 8/i t/So MIt1UTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST il~ 19$0 80-461 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. Z37 IW D GENERAI. PI,AN AMENDMENT N0. 158 (CONTINUED) ~~w~~~~w~~.r~~~wn~wn.~.~.~~~~ problerro during the ralny season making addltional work far Ctty crews beGauae the system ts noc capable ot teking more wate~~ 6ab Young~ 181 South D~na Court~ stated threr years ego he movad from Yorba Linda to Anaheim Milis because his property in Yorba Linda wes encroached on by bad planning ~nd ha moved to this plenned wmmunity of Anaheim Hllls~ and naw geks nottce that this r~quest Is ~ reductton from 22~000 ~quare foot lots to 3~000 square feet end h~ could not believe the Commtasion wauld ~pprove It. He steted nvw he wil) be viewing a rs~creatlon center for a 65•u~lt o~ndomintum proJect from hls property a~d dfd not feel this Is whet he bought. He ~tated the davaloper has ~ot contected the preperty owners at all and these nottcas were a tota) surprlse. Ne wsnted te kaep the ptenned cammunity of Anehelm Htlls. John Maciavlc~ 187 South Donna Court. statcd ha wi11 also be overlooking ~he proposed ~ecreatlan center; that the ck velope~ mentioned the property is e blfght on tha a~ee snd condomtntums would be an irrQravement, but hc did not think smal) animals end road~unners could be considered a blight. He statec! he brought his femity t~ thi~ aree beceuse he waa gotng to be gut+renteecl by the zoning of the Ctty of Anaheim that he could enJoy chis property the way tt is right now a~d he did not want to be disapt~elnted and asked that tfi e Commission hold to the original zoning. 9ob Fiordntino~ 162 South Canyon Mlood itoad, on the opposlte side o~ this proposed proJect referred ta hts August 6th mamo covertng the following: (i) everyone in~pected that parcel before buyiny end kncw the toning and dtd not pian that it would be rezoned; (2) ed~acatton of thelr ch(ldren~ noting Just thts fall E1 Rancho Jr, Nigh School wa~ forced to g~ into four-cycle, year around terms over the vehem~nC op!+osltio~ of the parents because It was not capable of housin9 their children a~d he felt addtng 6$ htgh denstty dwelling units will further Impact thot h~using problem at E1 Rancho; and (3) the stands of trees and topogr~phy of the canyo~~ nottng the canyon Is beautiful and he felt it is unnecesssry to destroy it slmply to provide high density dwellings. Mr. Fiorenttno added he found it interesttng that the develope~ would mention that in splte of thelr efforts to prevent dumping~ thts has become a dump site and aa a homeowner overlooking this durtp site~ can say the developer hns done ~othing but post a c~uple of sig~s and no effort has been made~ other than homea~rncrs yelting at the people durt~ing. lCathy Beard, 231 Riverwond Circle~ stated she lives In the group of Warmington Homes whith is Just west of the site end her mai~ concern is incompattbtltty with the area; that their homes ra~ge from $225.000 and are custom built homes and there a~e th~ee new homes under construction which will range from S360~000 to 53~,000 snd she was concerned about prope~ty values~ in additlon to the water run-off. She stated Warmington was alloaed tn build a temporary drainage dttch which is conpletely flooded and has eroded la~g~e Eucalyptus tree^ which could fall ~nd she was concern~d about he~ property rights. She stated both she and he~ husband work in order to be able to live 1n this ~-rea and ~td nat went davelopers to be allowed to butid o~ndominiums; that she does not ob,jec~ to ths p roperty being developed, as long as it (s developed within the =oning because adding 65 units Nould cause water and trafftc problems and affect their property values. Don Curcte~ 158 South Canyon woods, stated he movcd th~ere because he liked t~snquility and wa~ told this area would ba developed into estate-type homes because it was unfit for smaller structures; that 100 yards into the canyon off Qulntana there is a larga grote which was implanted to insure water pe~colation a~d the weter wes ~eceived there ~til the massive durtping of various matertai in the aree. He felt the durnping was the property avner's ~esponsibility far not having posted the property until after the deleterious materiai hed been durnped. He stated they aii enJoy tl~e birditfe snd animal life. but ~eallze when thc property ta ultinistely developed, that wildlite wil) disappesr. He 8/ 11/80 ~~: MINUTES~ IWAIIEIM CITY PI.ANNiNG COMMISSI~N~ AUGUST il, 1980 80-462 ENVIRONMENTAI. IMPACT REPORT N0~ 2~] ANO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 158 (CONTINUED) stsced the approxlmate •elling price of homea in thelr orea Is S235~~00 +~nd feit tt is a shame to bring in 1000 and 1200 squara foot structu~es in an aroa whlch they have alt attempted to mainteln and up~rade. Na stated the develcpcr of the Pepper T ree tract told him they would havc bought that canyon and developed it as e psrt of this tract becauae it would have made a ntcs comnwnlty except the owners wa~ted toa much money for (t. Now they have neglected it and allawed It to bncome a dump site and want to se11 it fo~ davelopment of a whale Ctty right bnlow their p roperttes. He nc~ted it is not knayn whethcr these units wi11 be one story or two story and what the ctrcumstances wil) be. He stated the residents would ltke to kcep the area che way It is with development comp~rabla to th~Ir homes. Mr. Refanovtc stated the maximum methemettcsi number of unlts which could be constructod is 67~ but rcalistically they can p robably only bufld ~0 units and the net increase in populatlon as shawn i~ the ElR is approximotely aA peuple. The phystcal topog~aphy north is tcwards thc subdivision and Rlo Grande haa Its low point at Fairmont with a hump towarda Qulntana and chere Is e massive City sto~m dreln wtthin thefr property whtch takes water from above and from their property and that nona of the weter from the stte cauld physically get ove~ the hump to Quintana. Regarding (nadequate water supply~ Mr. Rafenovic stated the Detmer Intertie affects half the Clty af Anaheim and not Just 80 additional peo~le and he recagnizes plannars of future changes want to be sure it ts understood that any increase is Justiftcatton for additionsl co~struttton. 7he existing faclltties can more then edequately supply what is p roposed and certainly the FA additional people. M~. R~fanovlc undarsta~ds there is a certaln attttud~ about condominiums~ but wanted to polnt out thts proposal is not for row houses and b~sically will be singlC-family hanes~ some possibly attached. Ne understood the concerns and fears expressed by the ~eighbors and indicated he wil) work with them to const~uct something they can be proud of~ painting out thtse will not be apertments~ but cluster housing. He stated they wTll have to appear before the Commissio~ with specific ptans and a reGuest for rezoning and a tentative tract map whtch wil) provide the opportunity for the neighbors and Commissto~ to see what is proposed~ but at tha present time they a~e requesting cansideration of the land use whlch is conslstent wlth su~rounding developme~t. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEU. Chairn-en Tolar stated he would not sup~sort any change on thts property et this point~ because there are no specific plans; that he has n~~er suppported a Gen~eral Plan Amendment without some concept of what is going to be devet~ped. He stated the Commission looked at al) the terrain in that canyon as it was developed and knows wfth grsdtng as it is today~ snythtng ca~ be rh anged~ but it waa the intent to develop as closely as posslble with the natural terrain. Ne feit the topography was carefully considered for 25 units on that property and cluster housi~g was not even constde~ed. Ne stated the current Genera) Pla~ wouid allaw 25 clustar houses but he felt that would totaliy destroy the appearanca of that property. He statad the durip is ve ry bad and Fnlt sanethtng will have to be done to notify the owner to clean it up because th~t is the owner's obligatton. He felt 40 addltiona) units would create an average trip count per day per unit of approximateiy 7 to 10 which a tremendous amount af ingress and egress. He stat~d even though additto~a) houstng Is needed in this City, he personally wili not suppo~t increased dnnsity. He stated a lot of hours were spent deciding wh~t is best for the whale area and hc is proud of what h~s been done and will not support a condomintum p~oJect in thm middle of singir famtly p roJects. He did not knvw of any condominiwRS (n that area. A/11/An ~ MINUTES~ ANAMEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AU~l1ST 11~ 14f~0 8~-4~3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. Z~7 ANb O~NERAI PLAN ANENDMENT N0. 158 (CONTINUED) `.`........,...~.....~......r.....__..... .~_..~ ~..~._..`~..._.....~. Comml~sloner Narh=t agreed rega~ding eatate xantng end et+~t~d h~ has spent m~ny h~urs an the! committee pla~nfng the zoning far thl~ ~~ea. He pointed out the Gener~l Plen nrovides prot~ctlon of some of ehe ementitles of the cenyon dr~A and he felt the only way te do that Is to protect some of the canyons from dev~lo~mrnt end keep the open space xhe neopie thouqht they would have when they pu~ch~sed their hoines; that the pr~pe~tY owner hAS a riqht to devetop h1~ prope~ty, but he can dev~lop it in the mr~nner It w~s planned fpr. These c~mers lc~oked at the City's General Plen which is provid~d t~ shcxv what is qenerelly planned for the whola [Ity and now after they have bou4ht thnir h~m~s, thls deveieper wants to changR tt~ He disagreed with thls ~ro~s~d an+rndn~rnt hecause It Is nat known hew many poopln wlll llve there. He aiso felt thls Is one of thn wrorst access polnts in Anshetm fltlis and there ~-ay o~ may not be a rnm~ ta thA freeway which wlll lmpact Fatrmount drastically and he felt the z~ninc~ on the ~1rnpC-'ty n~.- ts edequate. Ne stated when this drea was plnnned certain conyons w~re t~ be 1Aft an~i thls 11m~ted c;eneral Pian shows houses on the floar af the cnnyon and -~Ith the 11n-Ited Access. hr dtd not thtnk the erea con support this numher of units. Chairman Tolar did not think tl~e o~•-ner has encouraged p~aple to dumn an this site, but also did nat think he has done anything to d(scourage thc duMpina an~i thls ~lumping site is gatng to have to be taken care of. fle polnted out the southwest corner of F~lrmont end Sante Ana Canyon has olready been approved for commerctal uses which wt11 provlde more trafftc on Rlo Gr~nde~ Quintana end Fatrmant. Ne felt the owner could benefit financlally better wlth estate developmPnt~ t-~an he could with cond~xninii~m dGVel~~xnent. Commisstoner Barnes stated she was on the Nill and Canyon Task Force for three Years and knows a lot of study went into the zonln~ for the ~~r@a; however~ since then the houstng picture has changed drasticaily and it is harder to sell the S2S~~~~~ h~uses and she ts tntPrested in rrovlding housas for others who want to llve In the canyon ar~a. Reflectfnq on the pt~n for the area which she hel~ed devel~p~ and se~fnn the houstnq ~tcture changtnq~ she was not sure that c~ndaninfums are the rtqht developnr_nt f~r thts area~ hut the Commisston has granted var(ances for lncreases of density to meet thP housing demands of thls Clty; that there is very itttle land left for devet~pm~nt and Anahelm Is losing industry because we cannot provide housing. She was not re~ally tn favor of condominlums at thls locatia~s~ but felt the Commfssion has t~ l~k at both siAes of the issue. Commissloner Bushore statcd he was concerned ahout the~ massiv~ vrariina that has to be done between other developments. He was also conc~rneci hecause th~r~ are no spectfic ~lans to ~eview and the develepment could change overninht. He was concerned nbout :hr. relatlonship of the roads and the three units et the bottom r+here the horse trails are located. He stated after lfsteninh to the oppositian, he c~uld not support the request as it was presented today. Commissioner Herbst stated when Anaheim Hills~ Inc, has h~en ~)lcwr@d hiQher den~itie~ tn certatn areas, there has been tr~de•offs, hut therP is no rorxn for the trAde-offs In this pian of swttching densities ta some other location. He was concerned about long range planntng for water facilities, etc. which were planned frrxn the 1q77 General Plan and when higher densttles have been allowed in some areas~ they have heen reduced In ather areas. Mr. Rafanovic apologlzed and stated they were not sure how ~o appro~ch this situatlon and understood that for a land use consideration, speclfic plans were not necessary and did not thlnk they were wanted. Ne stated they fully understood that whatever is proposed for ths area would have to be submitted for review and publtc hearings held. Chairman Tolar stated generally for a general plan amendment. specific pians are not reviewad, but because of the topagraphy and size and shape of thts property and since the property is isolated thz Commis~ion is concerned. „,_ . ... ~ MINUTES~ ANAHCIN CITY PL~~INING COMMISSI~N, AUrUST 11, 1990 80-A64 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT aEPORT N0. 231 ANO GENE~AL PU1N AMENOME-!T -10. 158 ~CONTINUED) ,...~ ._._..~....,. . __..,~. M~. Rafarwvlc steted thsY would have preferred to p~esent r plsnned untt developrr~~t r~ther than a request for zoning so tha trade-offs could he p~esent~d. Ne felt a preposal could provlde the amentlttes the people want in this area. ~ommissloner Herbst was concerned becauSe the developer I~ not specific en~ugh to knc~w wha; he csn do~ such sa how mrny units he cen provide on th~ land that Is evallable, and how muci, ~~ading will be necessary. Mr. a~fanovlc ste!ed they knew the topogr~nhy hut did not develop ~ speciflc plan and wanted Planning Com~~nsion considerstlon for a land use which they feel is avatlable to adJacent propertles. Chatrman Tola~ felt every owner should be~ ahle tc~ get the htclhest ~nd best ~eturn on his property end making a proJect viable depends ~n the pric~ of the prepery and if the development is det~imente) to the health~ sef~ty and aesthetlcs of the net~hbors~ then the owner of the praperty is obvlously asking tno much for the prep~rty and sc~n+ev+here there has ta be a balence between the owner ~nd the developer. If It is not economicaily feaslble to develop the propercy wlth 25 unlts es tt ts pr~!sently aon~d. then there has to be an adJustment In scmebody's evatuatton and it ts possihl~ the awner wants nw~re for the land than Its htgl~est and best use in the ~xisting zoninq. Commisstoner Ne~bst agreed and felt thts all relates hack to o~iqinal estimetes for density I~ the canyon area end It was later found that because oF the topoc~raphy~ fewer unlts would have to be butlt in order not to totally destr~y the area. Commissioner Barnes asked if the developer would 1(ke a contlnuance in order to present specific pi~ns end Chalrman Tolar statcd unl~ss the Commisslon supports the zone change, they cannot see specific plans. Commissioner BushorA asked how many unlts the developer would have pr~posed and Nr. Rsfanc~vlc replted with RS-HS-10~~00 zoning~ only lA t~ 2~~ untts w~uld be ~roposed and they would have proposed approximately 55 units wlth the zone change and the only qradtng necessary wouid be on the sweeping curve and al) grading would cenform to the Hillside Grading Ordinance. Cort~missioner Bushore stated he would rather leav~ the zont~g as it currently extsts. CoMmissionEr Herbst stated he favors cluster housing in certain areas~ but not in this d~. ACTION: Commissioner Nerbst affered a motton, seconded by Cortmissloner Fry and MOTION CA~tR ~ED. that afiter conslderin~ EIR No. 237 for General Plan Amendment No. 15~ for the proposed Rta Grande Villas residential development~ and reviewing evidence~ both written and oral, presented to supplement draft EIR No. 237, the Planning Commission finds that Oraft EIR No. 237 is in comptiance with thg Californla Environmental Quality Act and wtth City and State EIR Guldelines~ and thet potential environmental tmpacts of the ~roject may be reducod to an inslgnlficant level by confo~mance with City plans, pollcles and o~dinances; therefore~ based upon such informatlon, the Piann~~~g Commisslon recommends to the City Cnuncil that EIR No. 237 be certtfied. Commtssloner Herbst offered Resotution No. PC80-129 and moved far its passage and adoption that the A~aheim City Planning Commission does hereby reconm~nd to the City Cauncil that General Plan Amendment No. 158 be denled. $/11/80 ~.~ ~::.~~ M i NUTES ~ ANAHE I M C I TY PLANN I NO COMM 1 SS I pii , AUGI/ST 1 1~ 1980 Pa4s 80-465 ENVIRMIM~NTAL IMPACT REpQltT N0~ ~37 and GENERAL PLAN AMENOMENT N0. 1.~8._(continusd) ...~..._~.,._.__...,._._ .._._....._._...~., ... On rcl t c~l l, the fora9oing ~esolutlon wns p~ss~d by tha fol lawtng vote: AYES: COMM I SS I ONERS ; gARNES ~ BflUAS . BUSHORE, FaY ~ HEi' 8ST , K I NG ~ TOLAR NQESc COMMiSSIdNERSc NONE ABSETN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE 8/11I80 ~;;:. _ _. ~': MINUT~S, ANAHEIM C17Y PLANlrING COMMISSION~ AU4UST 11~ 1~80 $0•1~66 I TEN N0, 1 W PIIPI I C HE.AR 1 N~ . PRf1P~?SAL TA DELET~ THE SANT I AQO ~~~TT~ bECIARATION TRAIL (RACKElONF TRAII.) FRAM THE TRAILS ELF.MENT OF TNE 0. 15q GENEAAI PLAN. S~ld tr~il is pron~sed t~ extend from the aldc~ellne T~ntl to the Nelr Canyon Trell~ ~ dittence of' appreximately ~~~~~n feet, There w~s no one indicetin g their presence In o~positlon to suh,{~ct reQuesr.~ end nithaugh the staff raport to the Pis ~ning Ccxnmisslon Jeted August 11~ 1~An was n~t read at the pubilc I~eering~ it is refer~ed to and mede a part of the min~i~~s. Jay Tashiro~ Assoclate Ple n ne~~ p~~sented the staff ~~port t~ the Plenning Commission. dated August 11, 1~380 notinc~ thls 1s a property•owner Initlated Gen~~~l Plan Am~ndment to de~lete th~ Sant (ago Tral I f ~om the Trat Is Element of t~~e Anahelm ~eneral Plan because! na horses are A1lawed ~~1 thtn ~xisting Tr~ct No~, 1587 and £~52~~ or pro~esed Tract No, InnqF locited on the narth and so uth s(des of Avenide de SenttaQa. SubJect treil Is proposed to extend In a northeasterly direetlon frcxn the Aldq~llne Trall to ~h~ Welr Cenyon Tr~il, e distance of appreximately 9~4!10 feet. Th~ Riding ~nd Hfkinq Trells Element wns adopted on Septen-ber 14~ 1!i7h hy the C ity Councll. The Ald!ng end Hikin~ Tralis Commlttee considered a pr~posal t~ dele~te the Santla~o Trall on July 9, 148~1 And ~ecort~u!nded del~tlen because whrn the Trell wos u~lglnal ly placed an the Trellg Elem~nt~ thare w~s A pesslbll(ty that the adJacent d~velo~nt would permit the kee~,in.~ of hers~s~ whlch Is ne, l~nqer the case, and to mafnt~ln e long trai 1 along n raadway front~d hy non-horse ort~ri•i r~sldences is impractic~l ~nd the develo~r prnposes to pennlt th~ ke~ping of horses ~r, l~~ts ad)acent to the Irvine Ranch property a nd pr~poses new tr~lls. The ~~partrnent of P~rk,~ Re~reetlon snd Community Services indi cotes that the S~ntinqn Tr.~il do*s not aopr.~r t~ be of critica) Importance because (C wfil trav~rse thr~ugh an u~~An d~v~lonm~nt and wf11 parall~t r~ s~bd(vislon str~et and dupl icat~s the Edlson Casement Tr~ii. Th~ Parks !lepartme~t does not necessarl ly accept the arqument for~,arded hy the ~irveloper that th~- trdi l sheuld b~ del~ted because of the pr~h 11~Itlons of horses~ hecause many r~sidents mlqht opt to blke o~ f oq elong the trai l. Noweve~r~ the propc,sa) So delete thls sec~m~nt of thP tr~i l Is accep;~hle and wou1~ ~ot tie detrim~ntal to thr over~fl networ~; of tr~lt~ !n thls orea. ACTION: C~mmissl~ner Barnes offered a motlon~ seconded hy Ccx+~r,)sslnnPr King ~nd MOTION ~~r~~ that the Anahelm C ity Planninc~ Commission has r~vlew~d the proposel te delete the Santlaqo Trail whtch is prc~pose d t~ extend from ihe Rtdq~line Tr~il to the Weir Canyon Trail~ a distane~ of approx imat~ly 'l,~+n~ feet~ from th~ Trnlls Fle~n~nt af the ~eneral Plan; and does heraby recornnend to the City Council chat the ~~egetlv~ ~eclaratlon from the requirement t~~ prepa~e an er~vl~onrnenCal impact report he appreved c~n rhe basis th~t there would be no slgnlflcant ind ividual ar cumulative a~vr.rse envtronn,~ntal impact due to the approval of ~ts Negatlvr. DeclBrstlon;that na sens(tive envlronme~ntel impacts are involved in tha proposal; that thc i nltlal study submltted t~y the petlttoner Indlcetes no sl~nificant InJtvldual or c umulaClve adverse envirenmental (mp~cts; and that the Negattve Declaratian substantiating tha foregoing findings fs on ftle tn thc Civic Center. Commissloner Sarnes offe~ed R~solutlon No. PC8i1-13~ and moved for its passage ~nd adoptlon that the Anahelm City Plann ing Commisslon dc~es he;~hy ~ecommend to the City Council that Generai Plan Amendmant No. 759 be adopted to delete the Santiago Trall from the Tratls Element of the Generrl P1an _ An ro;l call, the foregoiny resolutlon was passed by the foltowtng vote: AYES: COMMiSSIONERS: BAR~lES~ BOUAS~ BIISHORE~ FRY~ HER@57~ KINr.~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NO NE ABSE-~T: COMNISSIONERS: N01~iE 9111/~0 . MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ AUOUST 11~ 1980 $0•467 ~~~ 'fh~-~ ~1~, ne tY~th~• b~stM~f ~ Co~tls IoMer lI~M-st dif~~! A~et lon, s~cond ed by Comml~sloner Fry snd M~TION CARRIED thet the meetinq be adJourned. The mRettng w~rs ~d journed et 5: ZO p.m. Re~pectfullv su Mnftte~t~ ~ ,` /1~~~ Edith L. Narrl~~ Secret~~~y Aneheim CitY Plannina Cflnn+lasion ELH:im FURTHER COMMISSIQN OISCUSSION: ~.~ Commissionar Bushore indlcated his concern relating ta rrohlems with hulid~nq contractors not n~ettng thelr obllgations and dump tru~ks dumqing an privst~ prepe~ty 111eqally. Fie fett most generel contrectors are responslhle, but acM+e sub-cnntractor~ are not rasponstble and asked how the City c~~~ tsrevent contracta~s fr~m dumping Illegally. Ne refer~ed to swinming pool c ontractors needing a place te dum~ excess dirt and sugqestecf when the ~+ermits are is~ued far e swim~ning pool~ tt,at th~ contracter he requlred to shvw where the excess dir t wil) he dumped and tf he has authorization to dump ~n privete property~ e lette!~ shouid be! suhmitted to thQ Butidin~ De~artr+~nt frcxn the property a+ner. He su99ested that i+f a complalnt Is ftled and a ltcense numher is qiven~ th~n .ity staff could follnw the truck. He felt at teast this would let the contractor knc~w they are bel~g watched. Joel Fick, Asslatant Director for Planning~ explefned CitY Building ~nspe~ctors are in the fietd in designetei areas daily and have preciuded a significant ameunt ef illeqal dwnpinq. Commissloner Bushore reported he has contacted the 9uildinq DRcertment himself wtth complalnts and gotten no se tisfaciion because they indfcated they did net iike to contact the fnspectors by radio. He felt if thls Cartunission ts to he consldered a responstbte Plsnning Commlaslon~ they sheuld follow up on cltiaen's complrints. Commissione~ Bushore also ss~ggested a Jolnt meeting with the Housing Comrnisston to dlscuss methods of creating housing othe~ than low cost housing. t .~"'~ I Y _ 4 ~; . . . ~.5 f i r ~ _ . . _ - -., , .~..y~4 '-ni'^""'~ ~ y~~,~ T~ ~ r' ~ ~~ r ~' ~. ~ . . . . . . . . .:~ ~ . ... ~ , _~ J `.. ~ 4 . . ~ . .. .. - ` n~r