Minutes-PC 1981/03/23Civlc tenter
An~helm, Cali~o~nta
March 23~ 1981
REG_ U_L_AR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI(?N
REGULAR - The regular n~etinp af tf~e Aneheim City Planning Comm(ssion we•
MEETING ceiled :~ order by Chsirman Tolir •t 1:30 p.m.~ March 23~ ~9g~
i~ tl~e Councll Chember~ a quorum bel~g prese~t.
PRESENT • Che(r~an Tol~r
Gonmi~sloners: Barnes~ Bouas, Bushore~ Fry. 1lerbst. King
AaSENT - Commtssloner: NO!~E
ALSO PRE~ENT - M nika Santel~hti A,sistant Olrector for Zontng
Jsck WhIRe Assistent C1ty Attorney
Jay Tttus Office EngtnEer
Deen Sherer Assistent Pl~nne~
Edith Narris Planning Commisston Secretary
PLEQG~ OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG LED DY - Comnlssioner Bushore.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - Ca~~~nlssioner King offerod a motlon~ seconded by
Comm ss one-r Herbst •n NGTION CARRIED~ thet Lhe Mlnutes of the March 9~ 1981 meeting
be ~pproved as SubmOtted.
ITEN N0. 1: EIR CATEGORICAi EXEMPTION-CLASS 1~ WAIVER OF CODE_aEQU_1_RE
F'iC~n i~i7{~'e i ~ i'FF'~F'f~"w i'~' r3fi ~"~"i"~,'~'~N 47~~'f't1~"R~B~ ~~~~ 0. 11313 :
PUBLIC N~ARING. OWNER: ZLAKET~ JENSEN AND QUIST. 20f31 Business Center Drive~ Suite
1y4, Irvine, CA 92715. AC~NT: R08ER7 D. MlCKELSON~ 134 South Glessell Street~
Orange, ca 9z666. Property described as a ~ectangulerly-shaped parcet of lend
consisting of approximat~ly 2.44 acres located at the southwest corner of Cypress
Street end East Street~ 2J1 North East Street. Property presontly ciasslfted Rh!-12A0
(RESIDENTIAL~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE,
COND11'IONA~ JSE PERI,IT REQUEST: TO PERMIT A ONE•LpT~ 63-UNIT, 25Y AFFOItDABLE
CON~OMINIUM CONYERSION WITH NAIVERS OF: (e) MINIMJM LOT AREA PER 01dELLING UNIT~ (b)
MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGF.~ (c) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA, (d) MINIMUM LANOSCAPED SETBACK, (e)
lItNIMUM RECt~EATIONAL-LEISURE AREA, (f) PERMIT7~D ORIENTATION OF ~UILDINGS AND (g)
MINIMUM NUMOER AND TYPE OF PARKING SPACES.
TENTATIYE 7i~ACT REQUEST: TO ESTABLtSN A 1-LOT. 63-UNIT CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION (25$
affordable).
Sub,Jece petition was ccnttnued fram the meeti~gs of Decenbe~ 15~ 1980 and February 9,
and 23~ 1981 at the reyuest of the petltioner.
It was noted that the petitio~er has requ~:sted that sub)ect petition be witlydrswn.
ACTION: Commissioner King of~e~ed a motion. secoRded by Commisstoner Bouas and
~~1 CARRIED. tFat the request fo~ Co~dttianel ~h e Permit No. 215a and Tentativa
Map of Tract No. 11313 be withdrawn at the request of the petitloner.
s~~. ~ ~4 3/23/81
{ ;
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 23~ 1~81 81-1A0
: EIR NEGATIVE DECLAMTiQN RECLASSIFICATION N0. 8o-8t•24 WAIVER 0
r ew _ RMI . s
OWNBRS: MAUft~CE PINTO, P~ 0. Dox 3N21~ 11nah~tm~ CR 92~3• AGENT: JERRY DRUKIN~
1~80 E~st Flawer Strwet, Anaheim. CA 9Z805. P~operty describ~d •t a rectangularly-
•haped parcal uf len d consistin~ af ~pproximately 0.4 ecre~ 40G WesL Vermont Avenue.
Propertr p~asently cl ass) Fi ed AS-7200 (RES I DENTI Al. S INRLE-FAMI LY) ZONE.
RECLASSIFICATION REQUESTt CL
CONOITIONAL USE REQUE ~Tt TQ PEaMIt COMMERCIAL USf. OF A RESI~E~ITtAI STItUCTURE WITH
WAIVERS OF: (a) PERMITTEQ LOCATION OF REQUIRED PARKING, (b) MAXIMUM S7RUCTURAL
IIEIGtIT~ (c) MINIMUM LANOSCAPED SETBACK~ AND (d) MINIMUM WALL t1EIGHT.
Sub)ect pettttar was contlnued f~om the mAettng of February 9~ 1~81 •t the ~equest of
the petitlonar.
It was ~oted the pmti tl^~~~e~ hacl requested th~t subJect petitlon be continued for four
weeks .
ACTION: Commissloner King offe~ed s motion~ ssconded by Commissioner Nerbst and
MO N CARRIEO~ thec Reclassiftcatto~ No. 8~-A1-2b e~d CondttEonel Us~ Permit No.
2171 b~ continuod to tha r~sgularly-scheduled meeting of April 20~ 1981 et the ~equest
of tho patittaner.
TEM N0. : E I R NEGATIVE OECLARATI ON WAI VER OF CODE RE U I aEMENT ANO COND I T I
E M 0. 21 3:
PUBLIC HEAR:NG. OWNEa; GRACE C~~APEL OF SOU'fM GATE~ gbkt Virginia Avenue, Soutfr Gate~
CA 90288. AGENT: THOAHOtMES~ 1330 Ridge Vtew Terrece~ Fullerton~ CA 92631.
Property descrtbed ss a rectangula~ly-shaped parcel of land oo~ststing of
approximately 0.3 ec~e, loc~tad at the northe~st corner of Broadwsy and Helen•
St~eets~ 325 Mest Br~adway (Church of His Holy Presenu). Property presently
claaslf!ed R14-1200 (tiESIDENTIAI. MUITIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
CONOITI4NAL USE REQUEST; TO PERMiT A PRIVATE SCNOOI IN AN EXISTING CHURCH 411TH
WAIYER OF MINIMUM NUMDEA Of PARKING SPACES.
5ubJr.~t petitto~ was continued from th~e n~attng of March 9~ 1951 at the reque~t of
the petlttoner.
It was noted the pe~ltloner has requested rhat subJect ~titbon be conttnued for two
weoka.
ACTIOtI: Comaissloner +(In9 offared a m~tlon~ seconded by Commisstoner Bouss and
!1 N CARRIE~~ that con~ideration of the ~bove-menttoned item be continued to the
regularly-scheduled meeting of Ap~i 1 6. lqbi st the requeet of the petitio~er.
3; 23/81 '
~ _ . _ :~
~.
MINUTES~ A~VIWEIM CIT1f PLANNINO COMMISSION. MARCH 23~ 1981 81-lkt
REA~VERTISED PUBLIC HEARINC. 01dNER: M. J. BaOCK AND SONS, INC.~ 6767 Forest Law~
Driv~e~ Los Angelea~ CA ~t~068. AGENTs M. J. 9ROC K AND SONS. INC., 1698 Creenbrtar~
Sulte 224. Brea~ CA 92621. P~operty dasc~ibed •s ~n t~regulerly-shaped per~el of
land conststing of spproxln~taly 1g.3 acres~ having app~oximate frontages of 300 feet
on the narth side of Faimouth Avenue a~d 900 feet on the south sido of Coronet
Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximetely 15 00 feet dnd being locsted
approximatety 6~ fee t west of the centerltne of Romneya Orive. Property presently
clssslfied RS-A•43~000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMI? fI~QUEST: TO PERNIT A 126-UNIT DETACHED CONDOMINIU-; COMPLEX
WITN WAIVERS OF: (e) MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL HEIGNT AND (b) MiNIMUM LANpSCAPED SETBACK.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: TO CONSTR~JCT A 12G-UNIT 145- LOT SUDDIVISION.
,,, . { ,
There was no one Indicating their presence In oppositlon to subJect requast~ and
al though the ataf f rnpart was not reed ~ i t is ref~rred to and n~ade a part of the
minutes.
Mike Conlon~ M. J. Brock b Sons~ Inc.~ 1698 freenb~la~, Sulte 224~ Bres~ Callfo~nla
92621~ explained this projecc was origtnally approvod fa~ 125 lota an~ for finsnctng
purposes they must spiit the t~ects into two sepa rate trscts.
THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLdSED.
Commiasioner Herbst asked if this pro~ect Is exac tly the same as previously approved
and Dean 5herer~ Assistant Planner, explained the~e are no changes to the proJect.
ACTION: Commisaioner KIn9 offered a motion~ seco~ded Dy Coerntssloner tierbst snd
RaTT~A CARRIED~ thet the M ahetm City Planning Cowmissio~ do~s he~eby ftnd that the
proposed subdivisians together with thefr desig~ and improvement are cunsiste~t with
tha Ctty of Anahetm Ge~eral Plan~ pu~suant to Gov~rnmant Code Sactlon G6413.5; and
doea therefore approve Tentattve Map of Trsct tdo. 11347 (I'~evislon t~lo. 1) for a 91-
lot~ 69-unit (22 open lots) u~~domi~ium s ubdivision and Tr~ct No. 11464 fo~ a 66-lot~
Sfr-unit (10 open iots) detached co~~omintum subdivision subJect to the folla-iing
conditions:
Tentstive Map of Trsct No. 11347
1. Tha~t ali enginee~ing requiremencs of the City of AnaF~eim along Coronet
Avenue and falmouth Ave~ue includtng p~eperatlon of tmprovement plans and
instailetion of all imp~ovements such us curbs and gutters, si~iowslks,
street grading and pavtng. dratnage faci lities or other appurEenant work.
shall b• complled with as required by the City Engineer and tn accordance
with spectficatlons on file in the Offira of the City Engineer; that street
ilghting faciltttes along Coror-et Avenue ~nd fot~outh Avenue shall be
InstallAd as raqulred by tha Office of Utilitiss General Manager~ and in
accordance with specifications on file ~~ the Office of Utilittes General
3/23/81
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CIT1f PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 73• 1981
81-14~
ManaQe ~i and/or that a bond, c~rtific~te of deposit, letter of c~edtt~ or
cath~ in an ~nnunt ~nd farm s~ttst~ctory to the CILy o} Anahelm shall be
poste d wtth tha City to gua~entee the instrllation of ths above-mentlaned
~equi ~sments prlor to occup~ncy.
2. That tre~h star~ge s~e~s shall be provided In accordance wtth approvad plans
on ftle wtth the Office of thA Exscutive Olrector of Pubitc Works.
3. That firo hydr+~nts shall be inst+~lled and charged as requtred and determined
to be necesse ry by the Chlef of che Fire Dep~rtment prlor to comnencement of
structural framing.
4. That subject property shall ba served by undergraund utilitles.
5. That dtainage of subJact property shall be dispoaed of in a rt~nner
aetisfactory to tho City Enginee~. Prtvate sto~m dralns sh~il be
const r ucted to oollact tha on-site drainage and conduct it to existing
dretn age facilttlea. Tempo~a~y desilting factiitles shall be constructed as
requi red by the Ct ty Engineer to prevent sl it from ~~tertng existing
drain age f~cilities durtng constructlan of the proposed davelopment.
6. That t he awner of subject property shall poy to thQ City of A~~heim the
appropri+~ta park a~d rec~eatlon In-lleu fees as determined to be app~opriate
by th ~ City Council~ said f~es to be pald at the tlme the building permit is
1 ss ued.
7. That the original documents of the covenantx, conditivns~ and restrictions.
and a letter addrassed to ckveloper's tttle company authortzing recordation
thereof. shal I be submi tted to the CI ty Attorney's ofti ce and approved by
the City Attorney's Office. Pubilc Utilities Dept., Building Dtvislon. and
the E ~glneering Division p~lor to fine) tract map ap proval. Ssid documents ,
as approved~ shall be flled snd ~ecnrded in the Off1u of the Orange County
Reco~der.
8. Thac all pr(vate streets sh~ll b~ developed In accordance with the Clty of
Anshe im's Standard Detsil Mo. 122 for prlvata st~eets~ including
inst a llation of atreet name signs. Plans fo~ the prtvate street tighting,
as ~eq ui~ed by the standa~d datail~ shetl be submltted to the Building
Divis io~ fo~ approval and inciusion with the building pla~s prior to the
Issuance of building permits. (Private streets are thase which provtde
prin~ry access and/or clrculatlon within the project.
9. If permsnent street name signs h~ve not bcen i~stalied, tampo~ary street
name si9ns shall ba inatall~d prlor to any occupancy.
10. That the nwner(s) of subJect proparty sh~l) pay the traffic signal
assesanwnt fee (Ordt~anc~ No. 3896) in an ~rnou~t as determined by the City
Ca~ne I i, for esch ne~ dwe 1 1 I ng un i t pr i ~ r to the 1 s s usnce of a bu t! d! ng
pern~i t.
11. The seller sh~11 provide the purchaser of e~ch co++domt~lu~.~ unit with written
info~rmatton concerning Mahela Municipel Code 14.;2•540 pertatning to
"pa rking restrtcted to fscltitate street sweepl~g". Such written
info~mstte~n wtll clearly Tnditate when on~^street parking is prohibit~d and
the penalty for violation.
MINUTES, ANANEIM CI'1'Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ MIIRCH 23~ i981 8~•~p3
12. Yhet the ssnitary saw~~s within th~ private at~eats sh~ll be private end
cwned and malntalned by tha homeown~rs assoctatton.
13• Thet all ratsed lundscaped sreas in the p~oposed cul•de-s~c shsll be
madifled per tht requi rements of the Streats and Ssni tatton Oapartmant.
Ta~tative Mep cf Tr~ct Na. 11464.
1. That all engineering ~equlrements of the City of Mahelm atong Co~o~et
Avonue including preparatlon of Improvement plana and installation of all
Inproven+ents such as curbs and gutters~ sidewaiks~ street grading end
paving~ drsinage fact 1 i ties or other appurtanent work~ shal l be rompl ted
with As requl rod by the C1 ty Engineer and in accordance wl th speci f ications
on ftle in the Offic~~ af the Clty Engine~er; that st~eet Itghting facilltlea
alnng Cor~net Avenue shall be tnstalled as rCqutred by the Office of
Utilitles Gensral Mar~age~~ and In accorda~ce with specificatlons on f-le In
the Offtce of ~ttltti~~:s Generat Manage~; end/or that a bo~d~ certtflcate of
depoatt. letter of cr~:dit~ o~ cesh~ in an emount and fo~m ~atisfactory to
the C i ty of Anah~ i m sh a 1 1 be p~s tnd w 1 th the C i ty to gua ~antee the
instsllatlon of the ebove-ment(oned requlrert~nts prior to xcupency.
2. That trash atorage arei~s shsll bc provided In accordance wtth ~pproved plens
on fl le with the Office~ of the Exocuttve Director of Pub11c Works.
3. That fire hydrants shal i be Insteiled and charg~d as required and determined
to be necessary by the r~hief of tlie fire Dapartment prtor to commencament of
structurai framing.
4. That subJect Qroparty shall be sarved by undarground uttlitles.
5. That dralnage of subJ~ct property shal l be disp~ssed of in a m~nner
satisfectory to the Clty Enqinaar. Private sto~m dr~ins shal) be
const ~ucted to col 1 ect th~a an-s i te d~a i nage and conduct I t to exi s t i ng
drelnage facil itias. Tenporary desi iting facii ittes shait be constructed es
requt rod by the Clty Eng(neer to prevent si it from entering existing
dralnege faci i itiea du~ing constructton of the praposed develop:ne~t.
d. Thet the ow~er of sub,jeet property sha11 pay to the City of An~neim the
appropriate pa~rk and rec~aation tn-i leu fees aa dete~ined to be appropriate
by t~e Clty Counctl. said feea to be pald ot the tlme the bullding permtt is
tssued.
7. That the origtnsl docurnents of the covenanta~ condlCions~ and restrictlons~
and s letter addresged to doveloper's title oompany authd~i=tng recordation
thereof~ sha) i be submi ttad to the Ci ty At~orney's office and approved by
the Ctty Attornay's ~ffice~ Pub11c Utt littes D~pt. ~ 8ui tdtng Divlalon, and
the Engineering Dlvision prlor ta ftna) t~ect n~sp spproval. Said dc~cument+t~
aa approved~ shal i be f t led end record,ed in the Office aP the Orange Coemty
Recordar.
8. That all private stra~ts shaii be developed in accordance wtth t.he City of
Mahelm'a Stand~rd Oetai 1 No. 122 far privat~e streets ~ including
Installatlon of street nam~ :l~~s. Pl~na for the prtv~te sCreet lighting~
as requtred by the standard detall ~ shal l be sub~altted to the Bui {ding
Olvision fo~ eppraval a~d (nclusio~ v+i th the bui idtng plens prlor to the
3/23/81
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ N11RCH 23~ 1981 81-iW4
l~suanc~ of buliding permtts. (Priv~ta ~tre~ts are thos~ whlch provida
prirtw ry•ccets and/ar circuistlon within tha p~oJect.
9. It permsnent :treet nanw~ •igns h~va not b~en installad~ temporary ~treet
name •ign• sh~il be Installed prlo~ to s~y occupancy.
10. That th~a aw~er(s) of subJect property sh~ll pay the trafffa signe)
asssssment fe• (Ordfns~ce No. 3896) in a~ smount as dete~mined by the City
Councii~ for •ech new dwelling u~it prior to the tssuance of a bulldi~g
pe rml t .
11. The saller shall provide the purchaser of esch condominium unit with written
informatian concerning An~helm Municlpal Coda 14.;2.500 partalning to
"pa~king restricted to facilitate street aweeping". Such wrttten
informatton wi11 clea~ly indicate when on-straet parking !s prohibtted and
the pe~alty fa~ vioietton.
12. Th at the sanitary sewe n withtn the prlvate streets shalt be privata and
awned and malntained by th~ homeawners e~aoclatlon.
13. That all raised landsceped aress In the proposed cul-de-aac sh~ll be
modified per the requi~ements of the Streeta •nd Senttatlon Oepa~tment.
14. That spp roprlate weter assessment fees as determined by xhe Offtce of
Utilities General Naneger shall be paid ta tha Ctty of Anahetm prior to the
tssuance of a bullding permtt.
3/2~/81
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 23~ 1981 81-1~5
aN
FI~~ CATI.ON_ N~O~~ 81-27. WAIVER AF CQDE
t
OWNERS: RICIIARO AND LUCY ANTHONY, 1200 We~t Ball Nc~ad~ Anaheim~ CA 9x802. Property
describ~d as • rectan9ularly-shaped parcei of l~nd conststing of epproxtmately 0.18
acre~ located at tha south~st co~ner of Ball Roed and Walnut Str4et~ 1200 West 9s11
Road. Property presently cl~stifled ilS•7240 (RESIOFNTIAL~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
RECLASSIFICATION REQUEST: CO
CONOITIONAI USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT A COMNERCIAI USE AF 11 RESiDtNTIAL STRUCTUaE WITH
WAIVERS: (a) PERMITTED LOCATION OF REQUIRED PARKINC AND (b) MINIMUM LANOSCAPED
SETDACK.
There wes no one Indtcating thelr pre~ence In oppositton to subject request~ and
although the staff report was not reod~ tt Is reFerred to end made a part of the
minutes.
John Swtnt~ ~04 North West St~eot~ Anahelm~ agent~ expl~tned he has revi~d the
condltlons and Is conccrned about tho conditlon requlring access rtqht te 9s11 Road
and stated if eccess rights ara not ovnilable to Bel) aoad then the entire proJect (s
not feasibie.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
John Swtnt responck d to Commisslaner Ki~g's questlon concerntng the access to 9a11
Road~e~cplaining Condttion No. 7 requtres th~ petltio~er shall obtaln reli~qutshment
of veh~culer access rights on Ba11 Road to guarantee eccess rights to sub]ect
N~aperty.
Dean Sheresr. Assistant Plsnner~ explalned when the subdivlslon wss first e,,proved for
single-fsmily residences, all vehicular access rights to Bal) Road we~e dedic~ted to
the City uf Aneheim. He st~ted there is an extsting driveway onto Bal) Road but
access rights belo~g to the city and the City Councll could grant raltnquishment of
the dedicated vehicular ecccss rtghts.
Commissior~er Herbst stat~d th(s appears to h(m to be pure "apot zoning" even tfiough
he raaltzes tt is a corner lot snd there is commercial across the atreet, but ha feit
this wouid be an enc~oachment tnto the residential area. Ne stated lt never fails
when the Commisslon grants this type zoning on a co~ner, tt will g~adually c~eep into
the residenrlal area and he did not feel at this time thts proJect wbrrants
commerciel zoning. Ne stated he felt if anything is 0eveloped there, en Area
Deve!opment Plan would probably be advtaeble to determine future uses.
Chnirman Tolar stated he agrees and felt this r+ould be breaking dawn the integrlty of
a:~other residentl~t area. He stated he is not only cancerned wtth Beli Road but haw
fer it would go south and he felt this would be •n opentng. Ne stated the question
conc.erning ingress and tgress to Ball Road in itself dictates there ~s a concern. Ne
stated h~ does not feel more cammerctal areas er~ needed and did not think a~other
access point 65 feet from the busy intersection is good plenning. He stated he could
not suppurt breakinq down tha tr~tegrity of thts residentiel area snd that thts would
be another clear cut ceae of "spot zoning" and refe~red to Brookhurst Street north of
Lincoin wh~~e individuoi dwelitngs hava be~n turned into commerctal p~ope~ties which
have created qul te a prob lem.
3/23/81
~
N~NUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON~ MARCH 2;. 1981 81-1b6
Comml ssior~er KI ng atated +~e favors tha pro]ect.
Commt~sionar Bern~s esked it the~e are pec~le livtng in the reslck nce at chis ttme
and Mr. Swint reaponded thac Mr. Mthor+y u~es the dwelling as his office ~t the
pra=ent ttrte ~nd that It has been used s~ en offtce fo~ 15 ysar:. Me explained the
owner doesn't feel thls property ts sultabte for restdential use eny long~r bacause
of tha nolse •t that corner. He stated ther~ is a bus stop et the corner and people
ps~k in the a roa to go to the restaurant ind the owner would Ilke to n+~ve and u~e the
enti~e homn es an office buliding.
Cammisslonar Barnes agread that this is e bu~y carner and referred to a simil~r
problem on Lincoln across from Rolph's Market at Sunklst. She ssked what type uses
+~re p roposed and hcw meny employees there wauld be.
Mr. Swint explalnad currantly there is cx~e employee and th~ owner ts a realtor and
hss his office In the ~oom closest to Ball Road at the present tirt-e.
Cheirmen Tol~r steted a condltiona) use permtt goes with the property and even though
this awner may only have one employee~ if he selts or leases the property thare could
be more employaes.
Commisslone~ He rbst stated his main objectton to the reclassificatlon ts that this Is
a smal) corner lot and (t doea not even n~eet the CO standerds and the only way it
could be developed i~ with land assembly. Ne stated there are corners all ove~ the
cfty whe~e homes heve bee~ converted to commercial uses. but that he has fou~d that
once the reclassiflcaticx~ has been granted~ it becomas an encroachment o~ everyone
else a~d thst thls corner does not w~rrant the re=o~i~g because It is a srtisll lot.
Conmissloner Barn~es felt further study is needed and Commissioner 8ushore stated he
wouid not be in favor oF further study unless there a~e specific requests fran a
nuaber of people (~ the area.
Chairman Tolar ~greed [hat further study should be held off unttl furthe~ requests
are msde from praperty awners in the ares. He sta~ed h~ fcels ve ry strongiy that the
rest dential areas muat be protected.
ACTION: Commisstontr KIn9 affered a motion~ sec~nded by Commissioner Fry snd MOTION
~ ED, that the MeheiM City Plenning Commtssion has reviewed the proposa) to
rectassify subject prope~ty from RS-7200 (Residenttai~ Single-Family) Zone to the CO
(Comnercial, Office and Professianal) tone to permit con~ne~ctal use of ~ residentlal
structure wtth weiver of permitted locstio~ of required parktng and mintmum
landscaped setback ~on a~ectangularly-shaped percel of land co~sistfng of
approxlmately .18 acre~ located at the aouthwest oorner of Ball Road and wal~ut
Street (1204 West Ball Road); snd does hercby approve the Negative Daclaration from
the requirement to prepare an environmenta) impact report on the basis that there
would be no sOgnificant Indlvidual or cumulAtlve adverse envtronmental impact due to
tfie approval of this Negative Decla~ation since the Anahelm General Plen cksignstes
the subject property for la~r density reside~tfal land uses commenaurate with the
p roposal; that no sens(tive envirornnenta) impacts are involved in the proposal; that
the Initiel Study submtttad by the petltioner indlcates no significant tndividual cr
curtwlative edverse envirornaental impacts; and that the Negative Declsr~tlon
substantlating the foreg~ing findings is on file fn the Cfty of Anahaim Planning
DepartmenL~
3/23/81
t`
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY Pt.AIiNING COMMISSION~ MAItCH Z3~ 1g81 81•14~
Conrnisslo~er King offar~d ~ resolutlor~ and mcved for Its pa~aage ~nd adopttAn that
the Mahalm City PIan~InQ Cort~lsilan does h~r~by ~rant Raclsssificatlon No. $0-81•27
s~b)oc* to Int~~deportmentat Committea recomi~sndettons.
On roll ce11. the foraQoing ~esolutlon FAILED TU CARNY with thR foliaving vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: HOUAS~ FRY~ KING
NOES: LOMMISSIANERS: BARNES~ BUSHOftE~ NEAliST~ TQLAa
ABSENT: COw'11SSIONERS: NQNE
Commissioner Ne rbst afferad Reso!ution No. PC81-y~ and maved for It~ passage snd
adeptlan that the Anahelm CItY Plannl~g Commission does hereby deny Reciasstflcatlon
No. 80•a1-27 on the basis that It wauld be considered apot xoning and woutd have a
detrin~ntat nffQ~t on the surroundinq r~aldential area and s~t an undeslrsble
precedent.
On roll call, the fo~egoing r~:aolutlon wss psssr.d by the follvwing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BAItNES. BUSNORf~ f1~RBST. TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, FRY, KING
ABSENT: COMMISSIONEtIS: NONE
Mr. Swlnt ~xplatned that tfio awner had talked t~ hts nelghbors on Welnut Street snd
they did not obJect to the request.
Commis~lo~nr Ne~bst nffered a matton, seoanded by Comnissioner Busho~e and MOTION
CARRIEO (Commissloners Bnuas~ Fry and King votf~g nc~), that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission doea hereby !4eny the request for w~3ve~ of code requtrement on the basis
that no hardships pertaintng ta the proparty's siza. shape. topog~ephy, lacation or
surroundings have been shavn.
ConMUisstoner Nerbst orfered Resolutton No. PC81-58 anQ ~oved for its passege and
adoptlan that the Ant~w-elm City Planning CommTsston does he~eby deny Cs~nditlanal Use
Pe rmit No. 21R8 on t-,e bssis that coa~merciaf usGS af a ~esidentta! structure would be
co~sidered spnt zonirig ln this ~esi~ential area and would hsve e detrimental affect
on the surroundtng Y•esldential srea.
On ro11 call~ the koregaing resolut(on was passed by the foilowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSI(~NERS: BARNES. gU5NORE~ HERBST, TOLAR
MO£S: COMMIS514NER5: BOUAS, FRY~ KING
ABSENT: COMMISS f ONERS : NONE
J~ck Whita, Asststant ~ity Attorney~ presented the xritten right to appea) the
Pisnning Commis~sion's declsion within 22 deys to the Ctty :ouncil.
~/23/81
`
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNIN~ COMMISS~ON~ MIlRCH 2;~ 1981 81-148
ITEM N0. 6t EIR NEGATIVE_ DECLARATION. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 5~-81-28. VARIAFI~ CE NO
OWN~RS: TERM FIRMA PROPERTIES~ ATTENTION: JIM NARTIN. ~+38 East K~te'is Avenue,
Suite 209~ Qrange~ CA g266'l. Propnrcy described as an I~regularly-sh~pad parcel of
lsnd consisttng of spproximatelY 0.9 scre. havi~g ~ frontege of apprax{matnly 180
feet on the sauth slde of ~ilken Way, ap~roxtmately 430 feet e~st ~f the centeriine
oF Herbor Boulevard. Pra+nerty presently clsssificcl CG (COMNERCIA~, GENERl1l) 20NE.
aECLASSIFICA?ION REQUEST; RM-3000
VAaIAiJCE REQUEST: WAIVERS: (a) MiNIMUM BUIIDINC SITE AREA~ (b) MAXIMUM SI?E
COVERAGE~ (c) MINIMUM L~INOSGApEO SETBACK, (d) MINIMUM RECREATIJNAI-LEISURE AREA AND
(e) MINiMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES.
There were two paople lndicatinq thelr presence in opposltlon to subJ~ct request~ and
although the staff r~port was not re~d. It ts r~eferred tu and mede a part of the
mirtutes.
Theodore J. Megner~ 2170 South ~Isrt~o~, Spaca S1~ mtsunderstood the ChdlrmAn's request
that the petltlonar make hta presentatlnn and statod the~e heve been arguments In the
past as to whethar ar not Wllken Way shauld be ciesed and he felt (f this proJect Is
approved~ it wiil creste mare traffic on Wllken Uey whith is noC accaptable.
Chal~man Tolar polnt~d out that the petitlone~ ahould make hfs preaentstlo~ befora
the apposition is heard a~d (t was nated the petitiane~r wt~s not present.
Commissiancr Herbst stated he did not think the Commisslon cnuld act on this proJect
as presantad tud~y because tt does not conform to the stenderds and is a large perce)
of land and there Are no hardsh(ps. Ne stated 1~c felt the plan shc~uld be revised.
Jtm IMrtin~ Terra Firma Propertics~ Inc.. arrived and mpologized for being late +'nd
explained this project ix part of the old lrhite Front store p~aperty and is the iest
~emaining parcel; thst the Comntssion hws already spp~oved a lb2-unit candaminium
pro,ject &nd that chey want to Join these 16-units with *.hose candominiums. He stated
they dtd not provide the required recreetional-letsure area but are working on an
agr~emant with the ewners of the 142 units to uttlize their recreatlon area. He
expteined the request Is for high density to keep the prices dawn; that they have
worked with the city's Nouatng Authority but have a m~ral obJection to providing
affo~dable housing because it penelizes 75$ of the buyers who ere buying at merket
rates; that the propos~sd fina~cing will be with 10~ down and thetr company is wiliing
to take back 5$ which is their way of providing law cost housing. Ne stated they do
not belteve government s~b s(dized housing is the ans~rer to the houstng problem. Ne
referred to the waiver of setbnck and oxplalned he undarstood at the
Interdepartme~tsl Commtttea meeting that the setbacks would be ave~aged.
Uean Sherer, Assiskant Plannsr. expl~ined the ct-de requlrement In this zone is that
the sverage setback must !-e 20 feet. with a minimur. of 15 feet and tn no event wn
the buildlnA line come closor iha~n 15 fe~t. He explained the motel property ts sti11
zoned cort~rclally whtch permits a 10-foat setback.
3,~23/ 81
MINUTES, ANAHEIM GITY PLANNINO COMMISSION~ MARCH 23~ 1981 81-149
M~. Martt~ stated thay are Just roquesting the ssme setback as the nwtel end that tf
th~ dentity Is ~educed. ~hey wlil have to cherge mora for tha untts because thetr
land ccst: are ftxed and they have Ilttle control over the buttdinq casts; that it
was sugy~sted 3 sto~ias be considared but they did nat think it would be aeceptabte
espacially 1~ this ares because this is e low income aree and Harbor aouleva~d ts
noisy and the property h~s commerciel uses on two sides. He stated tha pu~chesnrs of
these un~ts would prefer lerg~r units as opposed to the recreatlone) erea. He stated
the ha~dship is not on the developer es much as on the ev~ntual buye~ ~nd that
averyone has an abligation to try and provide Affordable housing.
Mr. Wagnar~ Westwind~ Tr~lier Lodge~ stated he lives across the st~eet and esked if a
20-foot setback Is required from the property line and stated he dld not thi~k tf the
20-foot setbeck is provided~ that there wilt be 11.9 of en acre ieft for development.
Ne siated thta a~ee between Orangewood and N~rbor has one of the worst crlme rates in
the ctty anci he felt wlth more condominiums brtnging tn m~re famllles, the~e would be
e tot more crime. Ile askad sbouc the statement that the State mandates that the city
givQ a density bonus for condominiums.
Jack White~ Ass(stant Ctty Attorney, expl8ined the Government Code Section 65915
provtdes that when n a+ rtsldentiel units are constructed and a developer is wtlling
to provide not tess than 2~$ af the units to persons who quelify under Stete taw as
low and maderote Incame households~ the clty ts mendoted to grant a 25$ bo~us or
other types of bonuses under th~ zoning rRgul~t(ons.
Mr. Wagner stated they do not obJe~t to single-family dwellings or maybe a few
condominiums; but that there is an office building siready exlsting and it is
blocking thetr view and they feel 1G addtCtonel condomintums on thts smell p~rcel
would not be acG~p~able.
Alice Levesque, Space 25, Nestwinds. statnd the! tenants at thts mobllehome park heve
been given notlce to move a~d several have rroved and are being replaced with
overnighters and usually people wi~h Isrge recreatlonal vehicles have two vehicl~es
and they are parking on W11ken Wey causing ~roblems fo~ the tenants in the mobiichome
park who want to leave or enter the park. She stated the a~ea has been pc~sted for a
"15 miln per hour" speed itmit, but th~ peaple do not obey the speed ltmit. S~e
stated the traffic is irn~ossible ~ow and these addittonal condomi~lums would increese
the traffic. She stated she has itved here 17 years; that there is a new motel on
Narbor and that the traffic is using the mtddie lane and It stacks up going both ways
and that she uses Haster to get Into the mabilehome perk. She stated same of the
singles-fsmi ly homes in the area have been sold beceuse the ownors v+ere ti red of the
trouble they had before the White F~ont pr~perty was fenced. She stated she had to
be escorted back into the park after being out at ntght because the police were
looking for someone hiding in the park. She steted she will be 75 Y~ars old on he~
next birthday and does not kna+ where a person can go to find peace and quiet and not
have all these problems. She felt this denstty is too high and the pnputation is
growinq and there will be more cars in the ares. She stated she does not want to
leave thls area after 17 years bocause she has her friends and a~cttvities at this
locatlon, but is concerned ~ out the existing problems ~hlch will be incresseci.
3/23/81
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION~ MARCH 23~ 19$1 81-150
Mr. Marttn referred to the psrktng situeti~n and explalned they are p~oviding 2.5
spaces per unit and there wlll be no psrktng an the atreet.
THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst stated he talt the prtittoner should ask for a continuence and
ravise the plans because according to state law~ the Commisslo~ cannot aiiow a
density bo~us if no affordable units sre being provlded. I~e stated this ts a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land and it would be h~rd to Justify any hardshipa for
a varlance. He thaught the proJect is overbuilding the narcel and the density should
be reduced. Ne referred to che lctter sept to thc pettttonor by ~taff explalning the
Commission's reluctanca to grant watvers. He stated ha does not agree wtth the
opposttton's tmplicatlon thae people who live In apa~tments are ~ot good citizens and
noted a good portton of our populatlon iive tn apartments and that they are good
people and that the city (s trying to butld places for these people to ltve. Ne felt
devaloptng the property will cut dawn the crtnw~ rate in thst erea because open
p roperty is an attractive ~uis~nce.
Mr. Ma~tin atat~d he will reduce tha dens(ty to whatever It takes to develop the
proJnct.
Chalrman 7olar stated the Commisslon cannot discuss the eco~omlcs and does not have
the pawe~ to grant these ty pos of varianc~s uniess s hardship ts shawn pertaining to
the property itsalf o~ the pro)ect is providing affo~dabte housing.
Commissloner Barnes stated she th(nks thr. Commlsslon agrees with Mr. Martin but
cannot grant ~he bonuaes and asked if Mr. Nartin has been attending the Plenntng
Co mmission/City Council workshops pertaining to law coat housing with M~. Martin
responding that he has not. Conmissioner Barnes conttnued that the workshops have
dea~t wtth the variance~ which have beon granted in the past far sffo~dable housing
and the indtcatton end diractton the Commisston has gotten from the Council ts that
they do not wish to see any variances over the 25Z densitv bonus with the affordabie
housing. She sta*.ed the condomintum stenderds are being ~avTsed and suggeated Mr.
Martin review those changes.
;: Mr. Martln stated he is aware of the chenges proposed and stated again they will
revtew the pro}ect b ut asked if it Is correct to oenali=e ?5~ of ~he homeawners with
htgher rtnnthly pay mants because they had to pay mere to subsidize the other 25$.
CorimisstonEr Fry stated he did not want che petttiannr t~ get the idaa the Commisston
is trying to force him tnto provfding affordable housing.
Mr. Martin stated they have no i~tention of bullding under the affdrdable criteria
be~ausa they ftnd it marai ly questlonable,
Commisstonsr Herbst s.uggested hr. Martin attend the meeting~ with the City Council
torrorraa night~ March 24th at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Wagne~ steted from the audience that the neiqfibors a~e not Abjecting to housing
being developed a~d pointsd out that therz Is a.~ad health hazard In that area with
3/23/8t
~
i
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 23~ 1981 81-151
ret~, etc. and that they would ltke tha bullding torn down ~nd tha p~operty
dcveloped. H~ steted they want ~anetht~g thdt NI11 co~reapond with tha existing
landscepl~g and do not want buildln9Y that would hide Lhe landsc~ping and vlew.
Commtssloner Barne~t st~ted the Jalnt meeting with tha City Council tomorrow night is
supposa to be to •dopt n av soning ch~n4es ~nd she did not knaw tl` ther~ vrould be any
further discusslon on effordable housing.
Mr. Martin stated he would iike a two-week continuance a~d atated they will try to
revlse the proJect to meet the codes but that they •re under constr+~tnts of cost snd
will heve to pasa them alang. He stated they wtli look at the three-story proJect
but felt tt wi11 probabty be as obJectlonable aa a denser proJect. Ne stated the
private sector is trying to aelve the houaing pro~lem.
Commisstone~ Barnes explai~ed the stete laws as they pertatn to affordable housing
d~nstty bonuses and stated th~t the higher bonuses have b~~~en gr~nted during the past
yaar and the qroJects h~ve been revlewed on a case-by-case t~sis. She steted the
Commisston reslizes the cost of development snd the cost of and snd the need for
housing and ore trying to do whst they tan to solvc these p roblems.
Commisstoner Herbst ex~latned the Commtsslon and Council are considering reducing the
RM-3000 atandard: pertalning to tho st=Q of the unlts~ parking atsndards~ etc. which
will elimtnata the need Ror some of these vari~nces.
Mr. Martin pointed out thst chey did meat the 3.S parking spaces per untt reQuirement
on the 142-units al ready epp~oved.
ACTION: Commissioner Barnes ~ffered a mott~n~ seconded by Cammissloner Nerbst and
MOT ON CARRIED~ that conalderaclon of The aforementioned ttem be continued to the
regula~ly-scheduled neeting of Apri) 6, 1981 at the req ues t of the peticioner.
3/Z3/~1
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING fOMMISSION~ MARCH 23~ 1981 81-152
ITEM N0. 7: ENViaONMENTAI IMPACT REPORT
OWNERS: KENT LIW 0 COMPANY~ P. 0. Box 19550~ Irvtne~ CA 92713. ACENT: JAMES E.
CROSBY Ef~GIN~ERING~ 1820 Eest Deor Avenue. Suite 100~ Santa Ane~ CA 927A5. Property
described as (Portton A): 33.y ecn+s et the southaast corner of Sante Ana Canyon
Road and Welr Canyon Road. (PA~tion D); 3g.3 acres on the east slde of 41eir Canyon
Road, south of Santa Ana Canyon Roed. Property presentl~ classified RS-A-43,A00(SC)
(RESIDENTIAL~ AGRICULTURAL SCENIC CORRIpOR AVERLAY) 20NE.
VARIANCE a~QUEST: I~AIVERS GF; (e) MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL HEIGHT~ (b) MINI~IUM LANDSCAP~p
SETBACK.
YENTATIVE T MCT N0. 10983 (PORTION A) REQUE5T: 16~i-LOT. 1G2-UNIT RM-3~Q0(SC)
SUBDIVISION.
TENTATiVE TRACT N0. 1~964 (PORTION B) REQUEST: TO ESTA6LISH A 151-LOT~ 15n•UNIT RS-
SOOp(SC) SUd01VISI0N.
There was ~o one Indlcating t~.heir presence (n opposltton to sub}ect ~equest~ and
although thie staff repart was not read~ it is referred ta end made a pe~t of the
minutes.
Tom Wlnfield~ attor~ey ~epre~rnting Ka~fman ~ Brc~ad~ stated (n 1978 Environmental
Impact f~ port I~o. 21G was constdered and certifled tn connectton with this property
and on March 17~ 1~$1~ the C(tv Councll approvrd a public fdcilittes plan for the
prnject. He stated ti~eir stafl` ts prosent to answer eny questions pertaining to ih~
environmental impact ~epnrt or the te:~tatlve maps. He stated the one requested
waiver !s to altow constructto~ of trvo-story d,relling unics withtn 150-feet of
single-fami ly zaned property; t~~at ctie pu~pose of thi~ regulatlon is to prevent
apa~tment-like unlts adJacent to s(ngl~-family residences end they unde~stand that
concern. He stated tneir propos~e) ts to havC a form of single-family reslde~ces
p~esently only accommodatad in the multipl~-family zone, but thet these will be
single-famtly lots and will be single-f~mtly llving. He statcci they feel the ~urpose
of the ordinance (s not served wh~n thPs proJect is ~roperly evaluated. Ne axplslned
the physical topography of the pr~Ject is such that when development occurs~ there
wil) be a grade sepa~ation of 15 to 20 feet and they feel carrying out the letter of
the ordinance will be an injusttce and cr~ate an unreesonable ha~dship. Ne s~ated
there will be two types of single-family living dwe!ltng units and the higher aansity
unlts wil! have the appea~ance af sfhgle-femity homes.
Mr. Winfield referred to the verianc~ requi~ing a 20-foat landACaped buffer bGtween
claaaical single-family living and apartment~ or co~diomtnlum units typical of a
multiplr fAmily z4ne. Ne stated the type of 1lving proposed here do~as not requfre
that buffer, but that there are only four lots tn q uesttor~, Lots 69 through j2. Ne
atated thare ts a grede differe~ttai dictated by the topegraphy providing a 15~foot
buffer e~d they feel compliance with the ordinance would creata sn undue h~rdship.
Deor~ S~~erer, Assistant Plenrwr. explatnod the third waiver ts ~ w~iver of the
hillaide grad{ng ordinence which ts Item No. 15f of Reports and Recommendations.
3/23/81
l
MINUT~S~ ANAHEtM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCN 23~ 198t 81-153
M~. Wlnfleld cantinusd t!~at the purpose of tha hillside g~ading ordtnence Is to make
:ura that tha ow~ar of the prope~ty f~cing the slop~s hes control over the slope end
that wilt be accomplishad through tha use of o melntenance easement end that the d~^'
hlli owne~ wil) h~vn the malntena~ce eaAament of the enttra slope he is fecing.
Ne st~ted they fe~l this pisn •s pra~osed at leus th~n 14 units per ecre is beat
accc~~-iptlshed with proparty 1lne• located as shawn p~~ May down the slope.
THE PU9LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst statAd he lives In s xero lot llne development and pointed nut
~hls is the RS-5000 Zana and thero p~obably wtll be swlmmtng pools built in the
future and according to o~dinences~ s 5-foot high wa11 is required sround the
swtmml~g pool sra~ and he was concerned thst ther~ would be a nwintenance problem
with the well bnd suggested a zero lot line rather than having e 3-foot setback.
Commisstoner Herbat stated he was concerned about v+siving the 15A•feet requlrement
between st~yle-family residences because if thts proJect tsn't bullt by this
developer and is aold. the variance would be on the lend and d new awner could
develop wtthout coming beck to che Cammission.
Jack Whita. Assistant City Attorney~ polnted out the va~tance goes with the land but
tt could be tted to the candttlori that (t is to be developed in accordance with
sp~ect fic plsns.
Commissloner Herbst asked tf the single-fami~; homes ar the co~dominiums will be
c~nstructed first and Mr. Winftetd replied there are no condominlums and all the
units are stngle-family structures.
Jim iGo~ ProJect Manager~ explalned the construction schedule is to develop areas 4
and 5 concurrantly.
Commisaioner Herbst aaked lf Kaufman b 8~oed will be ~esponaible for bullding the
park on the east side of the devetopment and if it wlll be butit in oonJunction with
all these hon~s~ pot~ting out there are no pa~k sites or recreatto~ai facilities tn
that area.
Mr. IGo steted the prope~ty will be qraded as a part of the pa~cel on the west slde of
areas 4 and 5 at the seme ttme end it is his understsnding that it wiil be turnad
ove~ to thc city for improvement as a psrk.
Commisslo~er Bsrnes questloned the open space Lot A and asked ff these are hors~
trails.
Mr. Ko stated the opa~ space referred to is an aree on the west slde of the proposed
project which is a wilderness erea snd there is an ~extsting trsil through the
wilderness area and they plan ca keep that as an intertm horse traii.
Responding to Conmisslone~ Ba~nes' quesfion as to whether or .wt any agr~ement h.~s
bsen reached wieh the city pertaining to the matntena~ce of Lhe horse treils~ Mr. Ka
rnplled that Is a part of the public facilities plan sppraved by the City Cnuncil
last week.
3iz3~a~
~ ~ i )
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINQ COMMISSION~ MARCH Zi~ 1981 81-154
Commifsloner He~st stated the H111 and Canya~ Task Fo~c. discuss~d the horse t~alls
when contidarin9 ths daw lopme~~t of thit ~raa end this is the o~ly accesf to the
rivsr and tha sccass to the I~orse trstis has to b• provlded.
Mr. Ko roplled th~y are ~war~ of th~t problem and It ts answered in tha public
f~ctlttles pl~n.
Commisslaner Barnes Nas concerned about the matntenence ot tha slopes ~nd polnted out
~o one wi t l be el lc~ev~d to but ld In the eastment aree g~antnd by the u~pe~ property
awne~ to the lower property owner and asked tf a provision wt11 be incarporated in
the CCaR's because walle built In the lawer end of the sl~pe would create e
malntenance problem.
Mr. Winfleld steted tha CGbR's wll) be prepa~ed wlth ctty staff's input wtth thel~
experie~ce with the An~heim ~Iill's CC6R's end that s~y walis wili be requlred to be
e~chttecturally attractive and if the aree becomes s matntonance problem~ it wili be
the responsibi l ity of the owner bui lding the wal l.
Commissioner 6arnes stated the negiect of these •rees becoma problems for the city
and provtslons must be m~de th~augh the CC6R's to prevent these p~abl8nr~~ She
pointed out her concerns pertatning to the wails on the plans to Mr. Ko snd Mr.
Winfleld,
Chalrman Tola~ stated he is n~t opposed to thia concept and proJect. He st~ted he
thou~t he remeni~ered discussing that the park in-1i~u fees wAUld be used for
development of this speciflc pr~k and bafore he would support this request~ h~ would
went to knc~w the stetus of thet 6•acre par~ develo~ment. Ne ststac! he feit the park
naeds to be developad in conJunctton wlth the developinent of thls many units.
Mr. Ko stated the 8suer Rsnch develop~~ will p~y a proraced po~tion of the perk In-
lieu fees~ Just like any other deve' per. a~d that they have worked with city staff
and agroe to pey the park I r 1 lau fees of approxlmetely S640 per uni t when they take
out their butldi~g permits and they will also dedicate land for the park.
Chairman Tola~ •sked tf the psrk in-ileu fees wtlt be assigned to the development of
this particular park and aaked if the park wlil be developed tn conJunctton wtth this
p~oject. Commisstaner Bsrnes pofnted out thst would be up to the Ps~ks and aecrestion
Commission a~d the Planning Commisslo~ or this developer have ~o }urisdiction over
that decision.
Mr, Winfield stated no~mally under tha city ordinances, a developer would either
devetop tho land or pay the in-lleu fee~ or 8 combination of both snd that thla
developer has ag~eed to dedicate the lend and will pay the in-lteu fees and the site
will be graded and ready for the lnveaUnent of city doile~s for development of this
park. tl~: atated from their standpalnt thsy hope the recreattonai factiittes wtil be
developed aa eariy as posslble.
Commisstoner Bushore asked tf the mcney would be advanced Lo the city by the
devalope~ ao these factlities cen tre developed end Mr. Wlnfteld st+ted that the Ir~-
lieu faes wlll ba palcf by the time the building permits are vbtained and Lhat 10.5
milli~n dollar~ 1s baing advanced~ axcluding th~ dedicatlon af the park sike;
~I• 3/81
M~NUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMtSSION~ MARCH 23. 1q81 81-155
ha+~ver~ tho building ot the ~ctu~l park site; wa~ not required by thn city In the
~~ubilc facilltios pl~n.
Commitsto~ar Herbtt asked if ground h~= been set aside fQr the development of the
~ubstatlo~~ and tht police and fire tactlltles in conJunctlon wlth this pro)ect. He
~lsa referred to the schocls and noted the EIR indicates th~t the developer Is
wiliing to work with tha ~choal district and painted out th~t na co~cluslon has been
reachad as tc~ haw the :chool chlldren generatad f rom thts davelopment will be ha~dled
In the schools~ rec~gnising that tha schools In the area are alreedy avercravded.
Mr. Wlnfleld st~ted the school dtstrict has a maate~ cepltal lmprovement plan and has
plans fo~ o~e addiclonei school site tn the ared with Commt~sioner Herbst polnting
out thst addttfonal schoa) site Is at the corner of Se~rano end Canyon Rlm Road which
ia qutte a dlste~ce from this aree.
Mr. Wi~field stated the :choo) distrtct madc- the Judgement that If tf;e 8auer Ranch
development pry s tha fees under A8208~ It wlll allaw them to provide ndequate
educetlon.
Mr. Ko stated he thought the schoo) fecs are S660 per unit.
Commissloner He~btt stated he thought the Orar,~e Untfted Schoo) District has been
remiss in doi~g what they should for the schools in this aree.
Commtssioner Ba rnes ~sked if the atopes along the streets in the +erea will be grac_ed
or wlll they be nsturel and Mr. Ko replied thet the slopes wiil bo contour gr~ded.
ACTION: Commissloner He rbst offared a motlon, seconded by Gommissio~e r King and
MO I N CARRIED. thot the Anahelm City Planning Commission after constdering
Environmantal Impsct Report No. 241 for thc residentia) end cannerctal devetopment in
the B~uer Rench Plann~d Conmunity •nd after revle~wfn~ evldence both written and oral
p~esented to supplement to O~aft No. EIR No. 241~ ftnds that Oraft EIR No. 241 ts in
complisnce wtth Callfornla Environmental QualltY Act snd wlth City and Stste EIR
guideltnea; that Draft EIR No. 241 Identifles the follaving slgnificAnt impacts which
said proJect could have on the environment: (a) axtenalve g~ading of the land will
m~dify the tope~graphy~ change the drainage and eltminete or displace flora and fauna
in the p roject area; (b) vehicular t~affic will generate congestion. ratse and at~
poiluticm tn the s~ea; (c) the lnc~ease in pc~putation will plsr.e dn addltton~l burden
on t`~e O~ange Unifted Schno) Dist~ict tn an a~e~ whare schools ere operating near or
abovG capacity; a~d (d) the proJect wlll have a growth-Inducing tmpact by stimulating
restdential and commerci8) developrr~nt tn presently undeveloped areas; however, auch
e~v~ronmenta) Impacts will be mitigated by compllance with City oodes. policias s~d
procedures; the proJect wil! bring aubstanttal socisl and economic benefits to the
City and its resldents by providlnq employment and htgh quality residential
fscilities; an~ these econon~tc and sucial conside~ation~ rneke it infeasiblc to
ellminate the significant environmental Impacts or Impler~ent the project altarnatives
identified in tht EIR; and therefo~e~ the M ahetm City Plenntng Commissla~ does
hereby certifr EIR N0. 24f and adopts the above statement of overridl~g
consideratir~s.
Commisstoner He~bst offered Resolution Nc. PC81-59 snd movod for its passage sr-d
adoption that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Conwnission doas hereby grant Varlance No.
3/23/81
MINUTES~ A~VAHEIM CIT11 PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCF± Z3~ 1981 81•156
3195 on the b~sis of the unusua) hilly topogrephy of the subJect proparty and on the
basis that denl~l wouid deprive subjact property of prtvilt9es enJnyed by other
prope~ttes tn tha sams zana and vicinlty and granting the minimum landscapad setback
on the besis th~t the request ts mtnimial pertatntng to four lots end that stmiter
waivr n have bean granted ln tha past and subject ta Interdepartmentsl Committee
recomme~dattons.
On roll coil~ the foregoing ~esolutlon was passed by the foliuwing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, BOUAS, BUSHORC. FRY~ NERBST~ KING~ TOLAR
NOES: CQNMISSIONERS: NONE
A85ENT: COMMISSIONERS; NONE
Commissioner Herbst offered a motlon, seconded by Commissloner Bouas a~d MOTION
CARRIED~ tha~ the Anaheim Ctty Flan~ing Commission does he~eby ftnd that the proposed
sib divisl~n tc~gether with ils dealyn and improvement Is consistent with the City of
M aheim General Plan~ pursudnt to Governrr~nt Cade Soction No. 66473.5 and cbes
the rofore approve Tentative Map of Trsct No. 10983~ for a 164-1ot, 162-unit RM-
3G00(SC) co~dominlum s~bdtvts(cx~ and Tentative Mep of Tract No. 1A98A for e 151-1ot~
150-unlt RS-5Q04(SC) singlr tamily subdivislon subJect to the petitloner's
sktpulation that the designated perk sit.e wil) bc graded con~unctlvely wtth the
tracts and subJect to recorm~ended staff conditions. Nowever, following a 10-minute
recess and a lengthy discussion requested by the petitioner to clarify the portlon of
the p rovlous m~tion pertalning to g~ading of the park ~ite. Commisston~r Herbst
modtfied his motion for spprovai of th~ tracts as folloas:
Commissioner Herbst offered a nadifled motion~ secnnded by Com~ ~slo~er Barnes and
KOTION CARRIED~ that the A~~helm City Plsnning Commtssian cbes herpby find that the
proposed stbdivision. together with its design and improvement. ts consistent with
the Ctty of An,~heim Ganeral Qlen~ pursu~nt to Government Code Section No. 6E~k73.5 and
does therefore ~prove Tentative Mep of Tract No. 10983 for a 164-1ot, 162-untt RM-
3000(SC) condominfum s~b divistnn and Tentattve Map of Tract No, 10984 for a 151-1ot~
150•untt RS•5000(SC) single-femily subdlviston subJect to the following condttions
~nd includi-ig an additional condttion that prior to the approval o~ reco~d~etion of
the final tract map, the develope~ shal) dedicate the park site shc~rm on the plans
end withtn 18 months of the issuence of building permfts~ the park site shal) be
graded and a cash bond in the amount of SS0~0~0 shall be deposited wlth the clty to
gu~rantee performanoe of the grad{ng at the ;ime nf the approval of the final tract
map.
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 10983:
1.Th at the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 1~983 fs granted subJect to the
approval af Variance No. 3195.
2. That should thts s~bdivislon be develope~+ as m~re than one subdtvlslo~~ each
~~divtston thereof shall be submitted in tentattve form for approval.
3. That etther a 6•foot h(gh blocic wall snd or decoratlve wrou~ht iron and
block wall sh~ll be provided at the -~ea~ of those lots numbered 16 through
42 that rear upon Santa kn~ Canyon Road.
3/2;/~1
c ~ ;
MINU1'ES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 2;~ 1~81 81•157
4. Th~t sl) lots wtthln this tract shait be served by undsrgrou~d utiiltles.
5. Thet tha original cbcurt~ents of the covenants~ condittons~ a~d restrictlons,
•nd e letter addressad to cbvelaper's Litie company authorizi~g reco~datton
theroof~ shall be submitted to tha City Attornoy's offtce and app~oved by
the City Attorney's Office~ Public Utilttiea Department.~ BuTldl~g OiWislon~
•nd the ~~gineering Olvtsion prlor to ti~al tract msp approval. Sald
docunents. as epproved~ shall be fiied and recorded tn the Office of the
Orangc County Recorder.
6. Th~t street names shal l be approv~d by th~: CI ty Ple~ni ng Dapartment prlor to
epproval of a f inal tract map.
7. That tho ewnar(s) of subJect property shall ~eed to the City of Anahetm e
strip of land 74 feet in width from the centerline of the street alang
Santa Ana Canyon Road for straet widening purposes.
8. That ai 1 engi neerinq requt rements of the Ci ty of Anaheim along Sa~ta Ane
Canyon Road~ including preparettun of improveme~t plans and Instailation of
ei 1 improvements such as curbs and gutters ~ s idewalks. str~et grading and
psvt~g~ dratnage facllities or othe~ eppurtenent work, shall be comp114d
wlth es requlred by the CitY Engineer snd In ec~cordance with spectfications
o~ flle in the Office of the Clty Engineer; that street Ilghtiny facilities
along Senta Ana Canyon Road shall be tnstalled as requlred by the~ OfftcG of
Utilittes General Manager. ~nd in eccordance with spaciflcations on file In
the Offtce of Utiilties Gnneral Ma~ager; and/or that a bond, certiflcate of
depasit~ l~etter of credit, or cash, tn an ~mount and form satisfactory to
the C1 ty of A~aheim shA) l be posted with the Ci ty to guerant~e ihe
instsllation of the above~menttoned requirements prior ta introductfon of
ordinanc~ re~oning s~bJect property.
g. Thet f I re hydrents shal 1 be I nstal led a~d charged as requ! red an~w detennlne~
ta be ne cessa ry by the Chidf of the Fire Dapartment p rlor t4 commencement of
structural f~aming.
10. 7hat the avner of s~ject ,r.~o; ~rty shal l pay to the City of Anahetm ths
appropri at~ park ~za recre~~tlon 1~-1 lau fecs as determined to be appropria~te
by the City Cauncil~ said tcea to be paid at thc time the b uilding permtt Is
issued.
11. I f permanent street name si~ns have not been installed~ te+rporary street
name s(gns shall be installed prior to any occupancy.
12. That al l t+~qui rements of Fi ra zone 4~ othen+ise Identi fied aa F1 ~
Administretive Order No. y6-O1. wlll be met. Sucl- ~equlreaients include~ but
are not limited to~ chtmney spark a~restors, protected attic a~d under floor
openings. Claas C or batter roofing material and one hour fire ~esistlve
constructto~ of horizontal surfaces 1f within 200 feet of adJazent
b rush 1 and .
13. That fuel b~eaks sha1) be pravlded as determined to be requlred by !he Firr
Chief.
3oz~ia~
e4 1
~
f
MtNUTES~ ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 23~ 1981 81-158
14. That nativ~e alopes adJacont to nowly con~tructed hcam~s shsll be hydrosaeded
with a Iow fual con~ustibla s~ed mix. Such slope• sha11 be sprl~kle~ed and
weeded ss ~qu) red to estab) ish 10Q feet saps~ation of flsmnsble vegetation
irom any st ructure.
15. Th~t reasonabte landsc~pin~~ i~cluding irrig~tion facilitles. sheil be
instaliad In the uncemented portion of the parkway of any Arterfal straet
and sny interlor or collector atreet where there Is an edJacant slope to be
malntetnod by the Nome Owners Assa cietion. The Home Owners Asaoctallon
shall ass ume the reaponstbility fo~ malntenance of aetd perkway landscapinq.
1G. "No parkl~g for strest ~eeping" signs shall be tnstalled prior to final
street inspection as required by the Publlc Works Executtve Dl~ector In
accardance with spectflc~tions on Ftle wlth the St~eet Maintenance Oivtslon.
17. In the ~event that s~Ject property is to be divtdnd for the pur~ose of sate~
lease~ o~ fina~cin9, e pa~ce) map~ to record the approved dlvist~n of
subJect property shal) ba submitted to snd ap~roved by the Ctty of Anaheim
and then be recorded in the office of the Or~ngo County Recorder.
18~ Tha dratnage of s~b)ect praperty shall be disposad of in a manne~
sattsfactory to the Ctty Engtneer. The requlred onatte dralnage facilities
ah~il be of a slze and type sufflctent to carry runnoff weters originating
from htgher propertiQS through said property es ~epproved 'uy the City
Engineer. Said onsite dralnage factlltles shall be completed and functional
throu9hout the i ract prt o~ to the i ss uance of any accupancy perml ts .
19. Positlve assurance shal) be provlded the Ctty Engineer that the extsting
offsite d~ainaye facilities are ~dequate to hanc~le on a temporary basts the
(ncreased dral~aqe frorn subJect p~operty in addition to Lhe d~ainage
presantly being hendled by these facliities. The developer shall post bonds
with the City p~lor to approva) of g~ading plans for subJect p~oporty~ (n
the amount and form approv~ed by the City to gua~antee the ce•-st~uction of
the ultimate offsite facilittes prio r to the commencdment of any grading on
phase two of tha deve) opment of tha Bauer Ranch.
20. A~ eroslon slitatian control plan must be submitted to and approvad by the
California ikgianat Watar Quallty Gontrot Board~ Santa Ana Regton~ prlor to
issuance of a g~ading permit.
2 1. That approprt ate water assessment fees as determtned by the Off Ice of
Uti l tti es Ge~eral Menager shai l be pald to the Ci ty of Anaheim prior to che
issuance of a b utiding permit.
22. 1'hat the approval of Tenc~tive Map of Tract No. 1QgA4 is granted subJnct to
the approvel of Reclassificetlon No. 77-78-6y.
23• Thst the petitioner shall present e vidence that the proposed subdtvtslon
conf+orms to Co u~cil Policy No. 542 pertair~(nq to sound attenuatlon In
residenti~t pro)eccA prior to issuance of building permlts.
3/23/8t
;; 7
MINUTES~ ANAHFIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION~ MARCH 23r 1981
81-159
24. That the petltlo~~~ shall pr~sant avldence th~t the propo.~ed subdivislon
shall provl~de~ rtu~itiestinttheasubdivtsl~nfprtor to:the tsiuancerof ~~ttng
or cooling ppo
b uilding parmits.
x5. That all publlc facilities (Inciudin9 aquestrlan a~d hiking tratl locatton)
prapo~ePuallc•Fact11t1esrPlan~foreDevelopr++ont ofetha B~uersRanchhislsdopt~d
t.o the b
by City Council on March 1~~ 1981.
26. That the cwner(s) of s ub,ject property shall dedlcate and Imp~ove a 10 foot
wide equestrtan and hlking t~at) as ahcwn on the Equestrlan and Hiking
Tralls Component and that improvement plens~ in accordance with standard
plans and specifications on flle in th~ Office of the City Engtneer, sh~ll
bc sub mitted in con,junctlon wlth thc grading plan; and/or that e bond In an
amount and form satis`acto ry to the City ot M aheim shall be posted with the
City to guaranten the tnstallrtinn af the ebove-n+entianed requirements prior
to occupency.
pZ qW7 pertaining ta the
27, In accordance wlth the requiran+ents of Sectlon 18. .
initlel sale of residcntlal hc~mes in the City of Anahclm Planning Area "8"~
thehQ~m1G~neral,Planvarrd thehexisti g,toningtwithlnf300 feet ofnihent~9 the
Ana
boundsries of subJect t~act.
28. that P~~d~and app roved In accorda~cetwlth provisto~s ofctheiPC~,'Planncdll be
s~b ml t te PP
CommunitY~ Zone.
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 1098W:
-
1. That should this subdivlato~ ba developed as more than one subdlvislon~ aac1+
~subdivtsio~ thoreof shall be submitted in tcntative farm for approval.
2. That ali lots within this t~aci shai) be served by underground utillties.
3. That the original documents of the cev~nants. conditlons~ end restrictlons~
and a letter eddressed to developer's tttle oompany authorizing recardatlon
thereot~ shal) be aubn~itted to the Clty Attorney's office and app~oved by
the City Attorney's Off(ce~ Public Utilitles department.. Butlding Division,
and the Engin~ering Divtslo~ prior to final trect n+ap approval. Ssid
docun~ents ~ as sPproved, shal l be f 11 ed and rocorded i n the Of f i ce of the
Orange County Recorde~•
4. Thst street nan~c •'~~+il ~e approved by the Clty Planning Aepartment prinr to
appr~val of a fSnel tr+~ct map.
y. That fnec ssara~bs thelChlsfioftth~~Fire~Dep~rt~mentsPriort od aco^r"°"ct~m°nt~of
to b e r1' Y
structural fraaaing.
~iz3ia~
c
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PUINNING COMMISSION~ MARCN !3~ 1g81 81-160
6. In th~ evrnt that sub~ect proparty ts to be dividsd fo~ the purpose oP sale~
l~ase, o~ fin~~ctn9~ a perc~l map. to record the epprnved divislon of
•~bJect prop~rty shall ba submttted to and approved by the City oF Anohelm
and then b• recorded i n the of fi ce of the Orange County Recorder.
~. That the a+ner af :~bJect property sh~l) pay
epprapri~te park end recreation (n-lieu fees
by the City Council ~ sald faes to be paid at
i ssued.
8. If perme~ent street nama aigns h~ve not been
n~ne signs shall ba Installad prlor to any o
to the CI tY of Anehetm the
as detarmined to be ~pproprlate
the ttme the bullding permtt ts
installed~ tempo~ary street
ccup~ncy.
9. Thst all requlrements of Fire 2one 4~ othnrwtse identified ss Fire
Administrative Ordnr No. 7G-O1~ will be met. Such roquirements Include~ but
+~re not limitnd to, chimney spark drresto n~ protected attic and under floor
opantngs, Class C or bettar roofing r-~terial ~nd one hour fire ~eststlve
const~uction of horizontal surfaces tf witl~in 200 feat of adjacant
brushland.
10. That fue) breaks shall be pravided as determined to be requlrod by the Ftre
Chtef.
11. That netive slopes adJacent to newly constructed homes shall be hydroseedad
wtth e low fuel conbustible seed mtx. Such slopes shall be sprtnklerod ~d
weeded as req utred to estebltsh 100 feok sepa~ation at fls~nnsble vagetstton
fram any structu~e.
12. Thdt the ow ~er(s) of subJect p roperty shalt pay the traffic signal
assessment fee (OrdinanGe No. 3896) in an artaunt as determined by tha City
Councll, far eACh new dwQliing unlt prior to the iss wnce of a buildinq
perm) t.
13• That raasonable landscaping~ including ir~igation fscilities~ sh+~ll be
lnstalled in the ~ancen~,nted portion of the ~+arkway of any srterial street
and any interior or coliactor street Nhe~e thare Is an adJacent slope to be
matntdineci by the Nome Owner3 Aasotistlon. The Home Ownen Associstion
shalt sssurne the responaibility fo~ maintenence of sald pariavsy landsceping.
14. "No parlcing for street ~veeping" signs shsli be installed prior to finat
street Inspection as requtrod by tho Public Works Executive O~rector in
accordsnon wlth speclficatio~s an file v+ith tha Street Maintens~ce Division.
1~. The drainage of suDject prope~ty shsll b~e disposed of t~ a n+~rn~~e~
satlsfsctory to ~he City Engtnear. The required onsite drainage faciltties
shsll be of a~ize and type auffictent to carry runnoff weten oric~ininating
f rom ht gher propertt ss through s~i d property as approveJ by the Ci ty
Englnee~. S~id c~nsite dratnsge facilttles shali be compicced and functlonAl
throuc,~out the tract priar to the laswnce of any occupancy permits.
16. Positiv~e aasuremce shall be provided the ~ity Enqtneer that tha existtng
offstte d ralnaga ~aci)lties sro adeq wte ta ha~dle o~ a temporary bssis the
3/23/~t
MINUTES~ ANAFIEIM CIIY PLANNINQ COMMISSION~ MANCN 23~ 19g~ 81•161
i~craased dr~inage from tub)act property in addition tp the dralnage
pros~~tly bel~~ handled by these facliltles. The developer aha~ll post bo~ds
wtth the Clty p~tor to approval oP gradtng pians for subJect property tn the
am~un; M d form approved by the City to 9uarantea the const~uctlon of the
ultln+ste oftsit• d~alnaga facilitins prlo~ to commencement of any g~ading o~
phase Mo of the development of the B~uer Ranch.
17. An eroslan siltatton control ~le~ muat be aubmitted to and approved by the
Californis aegionsl Weter Quelity Control Board. Santa Ans Region~ prior to
Issuance of a grading pe nnlt.
18. Th~t eppropriste wstor ~ssesan+ent fees as determined by the Office of
UtilTttes GeRerai Msnager shal) be petd to the City of M ahetm prior to the
Isauancc of a bullding permit.
19. Th~t the developer sha1) present evidence that the p~oposed subdivlsion
~hall provide, to the extent feasible~ far futu~e passive or natural he~ting
or cooling oppnrtunttles in the subdivislon prio~ to the tssua~ce of
buildfnc~ permit~
20. Thac ths a~provai of Tentative Msp of Tract No. 10984 is grsnted subJeet to
the finalizatfon of Reclassificatton Nn. 11~78~64.
21. Th~t tfie petiticx~er sh~ll prese~t evidence that the p~oposed subdivision
conforms io Council Palicy No. S42 pertatnint to saund attenuatlon i~
restdential p roJ~~ts prlor to issuance of butlding permits.
22. That a11 public faCilitles (lcludtng locatton of equescrian and htking
tretls. electrical substetlon and ~ther public improvements) proposed elther
wlthin or adJacent to the p~opoxed subdivlslon shall conform to the Publtc
Facilitles Plan for the Qevelapment of the Bauer Ranch as adopted by City
Cou~ci l on Narch 1)~ 1981.
23. That the ownar(s) of subJect property shall dedicate end improve a 10 faot
wi0e equost~lan and hlking trail as sha+n on the Equestrisn snd Htking
Trails Camponent and that Improvement plans~ in accordance with standard
plans and specificatto~s on file in the Office of the Ctty Engfneer, shall
be submitted tn conJunctlon with tht gred{ng plan; and/or that e bond ln ~n
amount snd form satisfacto ry to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the
City to guarantee the installatlon of the above•mentioned requl~ements prior
ta occupancy .
24. tn accordance with the requlrements of Section 18.02.047 pertaintng to the
inittal sale of res{dential homes in the Clty of Anaheim Plenning Area "B",
the setlcr shaii p ro vide each buyer wich wrltten information concerntng the
Anahe:m General Plan and the existing zontng wlthin 300 feet of the
boundariea of s~,Ject tract.
2~. That prior to appraval of the final trsct mr,a, ftnal speciftc plans shall be
s~b mitted and approved in accordance with provislons af the PC~ Planned
Cornnun I Ly, Zone.
_ . . .._ _. _ •~
( '
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINQ COMMISSION~ MARCH 2~, 1981 81-16x
Chatrman Tolsr oftered a motlon~ ~a~oncb d by Commissioner Nerbst a~d MOTIQN CARRIED;
that tha Anahelm City Plannin~ Commtsslo~ does h~reby recomnend to tha City Cou~cil
and Parks and Rec niation Commlsston that the park tn-lleu fees psid tn cannectlon
wlth Tent~tivs M~p of Tract No. 10983 end Tentative Mep of Tract No. 10984 be
designated for specific developrnent of the park s~te In this partlcuisr proJect.
RECESS The ro was a ten-minute racess et Z:50 p.m.
_~_
RECOt~VENE The meeti ~g was roconvened at 3=A0 p.m.
..._~..._..
Chalrman Tolar pointed out that thera needs to be some clerificatcion of the p~evious
motton in connection with Item No. 1•
Commissloner Herbst statad a question has been asked by the develannr concerning
grading of the park site fo~ a ro as 4 and S and explatned that his quastinn during the
pubilc heart~g had been whathar or not this park site would be graded at the same
time~ and naw the englneers ere saytng that they wfll be 9radtng tho psrk slte wh~n
they grade area 6.
Mr. Winfield explalned that he had misu~derstc~od and that the engineers tel) hlm tha~t
thare is a dirt balance be Meen srees 4 and S and a di~t belance between the park
stte and area 6 and that the park slte will be graded In conJunctlon with the
devalopm~-nt of area 6. Ne stet~d the public facilittes plan as apprc+ved by the~ City
Counci 1 an IM~rch 17tti was predt cated on that tf ine schedule.
Chatrman Tolar stated he has a problem with thet becnuso the development af area 6
ca~ld be a long ttme off end asked why the park site c.annat be graded at the s~n+e
time and Mr. Wlnftetd ropltad that they would have to put osrth on parcel 6~t a time
when tt wauld not be developed which would create an envirenmentel problem end a
pote~tial ltabtlity probiem for the awner.
Chairman Tolar felt tt is a~igger p~oblem that there Is not a park slte In the area
and that it could be a long time before aroe 6 is developed.
Conmissioner Barnes felt s ure the Perks and Recreation Con~nission had Input into the
City Councii meeting and asked if there had been any discussion at the Councit
meating pe~taining to the grading of the partc site.
Mr. Ko replted there was no speciftc discusston ~egarding the ~xact time of the
implenent~tior~ of the park and e~lalned tfiat they have worked with staff, includi~g
Jim Ruth, and he roaltzed that the proposed timing would be oonJunctive wfth the
dav~elopment of ares 6 and that ts the basis on whtch the public facilitles plan wa~s
adop te d.
Chairrt-an Tolar stated the lack of development of the park site wouid affect his vote
because a~ea 6 dcvelopment could be a long tin~ and he was conce~ned because the site
could be sold and ptsns could change.
Mr. Winfiald staLed this was a mejor effort on the pa~t of the developer end the city
and the ro have been questlons fram other devetopers as to why this developer has
ag~eed to spe~d 10.5 mtllion doilars. He explatned It was done besed on a timad
program and stated thst the entt re developr~ent cannot be done at one time. He stated
3/23/81
c ~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM C11Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCN 23~ 1981 81-163
th~ Comm) ss ton's des 1 ra to have a pa ~k s I te deve loped when areas 4 and 5 are
devsioped is no stronger then the devalopor's desir~ to have it developed as soon as
possible.
Ch~frman Tolar st~ted this public hearing was In oonnectian with sreaa 4 and 5 and
area 6 i: not ev~en bsing discussed snd ha w~nts the park ~tte developed In
conjunctton with areas 4 end 5 beceuse of the praposad dpnsity. He stated he thinks
this will ba • beeuttfu) dev~elapm~nt snd understands tt cannot al) be dane et one
time~ but he ts not willing to support watting for the perk site unttl erea 6 comes
along.
Mr. Winfield steted he would hope the Cammisston would cooperate and vote for
development of ernss 4 a~d 5 because the developer has worked a long tlme wtth steff
and tho City Counctl to come up with a~ economic package which ts 0xtremely
burdensome end th~t they would not be doing it unless they felt the entlre Bauer
Ranch would bs dovetoped in an expedtttous nwnner. Fb steted he felt en active perk
is but one ty pe of recreattonal factlity and that the wilderness a~ea that wili be
immedlately edJacent to this area and th~ equQStrisn tratis will be ~ valuable
recreatlana) factlity which w~ll be avallable to these owners. Ne ststecl lf area 6
does ~o~ develop these awners will be surround~d by ec~es and acres of passfve apen
~ pa oe .
ChAirmen Tolor stated ha recognizes tha cost of ckvetopment a~d understands the
impact~ but tn that area there a~e no perk sites~ ball dlomonds or flat land
recreatlonal areas and thare hsve been no funds to facfiltato developing the existing
park attc. but there wil l be a lot more people in that area and that the wllderness
aroa does cover the apen space criterla but does not constitute the t~pe of far111ty
needed for th 1 s type of deve lopment.
Mr. Wlnfteld stated the Public fac111ties pian rvas developed in a manner th~t they
fee) Is wo~kable and that the steff ~nd City Council recoqntze the problen~s.
Chalrman Tolar stated he realizos a lot of time hes been spent on thts proJoct and
~ealizes that thpr+e wer~ a lot of track•offs and that he is merely saying that all of
thls was predtcated o~ looktng at recreatinnal areas, comme~cial sreas~ conMnerclal
offtce areas~ etc.. and he supported the whole concept of a regional shopping center.
N4 stated when tht~ ares starts develaptng, he does not want to see areas 4 and 5
dev~eloped with this meny units without recreational facillties and that the developer
is o~ly dedicating and greding ~.9 acres ~nd hG did not think dumptng addlttona) dirt
on area 6 should be a proDlan.
Commissloner Barnes road a partton of the publlc facilitfes plan pertatntng to the
pe~k aite. Sh~e stated she would iike ta hear Mr. Jim Ruth's opinlon of this metter
because she dld not thtnk ihere ~11) be enough funds p~ovlded by this particular
dev~eloper to develop that park stto.
Chairman Tolar stated wlth this type of large dsvelopment, It Is the Planning
Commission's ~esponsibtllcy to provlde either o~-site or off-slte recreational areas
and that the Comnl ssi o~ hda never supported any project prodi cated on ~ny fact other
then that the proJect must stand on its awn merit. He stated this is a larg~ project
and it wnuld be a paur chaice of planning when, Tn fact. on smalle~ projects on-site
recroation~ol faci 1 ittes are requi red such as tennis ceurts, s~imminy paois, etc. Ne
3/23I81
L MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCN 23r 1981 81-164
polnted out there are no recreatlonAl amonitlea proposed tn a~o~s 4 and 5 and It is
conceivable it coutd be 9 or 10 yeers before the dsvelopment of th~e rest of Bauer
Ranati property. Ne st~ted the Commisston has not eve~ allawed a davelope~ as large
a~ Anaheim I~Ills~ Inc. to develop tho~e hllls ~nd canyons without the improvemants.
lia •tetmd he i s not wi l l in9 to run that risk.
Conmissloner Herbst stated th~ in~lieu park fes for a single-femtly heme Is S578 and
$436 for a Go~domi~fum Nhtch means S156~000 would be patd on thnse tracts and the
motion wa• that these parttcular feea be applied towards development of thta
particular park. Ile steted he felt if the grsding ls done~ then the 5156~000 will
provide a lot of dave?opment~ if the Council is ~g~eeable~ and some ball dlamonds,
etc. can be provtded tmmodlately far the chlldren. 11e steted he lives in the canyon
area and there is a la~ge number of children in the a~ee and wlth j12 new homes with
the addlttona) chi ldren that wi ll be cominq Into the area~ the other already Irr~acted
ereas wtll ba impacted more. He stated he would not chenge hts motio~ and he felt
the develope n ca~n argue the issue with the City Council but the Planning Commission~
as plannerl feels that the park is noceasery snd if the developers are not agreeable, the
k~act mau can be revised to provide on-site tennis courts~ swimning pools~ etc.
Mr. W(nfteld stated hn understood the ortgin~l motton ~aquired as a condition of the
ftnal mep that tha park site be dedicated. He explained they have agreed to dedicate
the park slte and he did not hear thn requirement in the n~tlon that the p~rk site be
dedicated nvw. 11e statnd he did hea~ from staff's nunbers that there wi11 not be
e~o~gh montas from fees in this developme~t to improve tha park.
Comrr~issione~ Barnes scated that the Planning Commission does net have any clear
direction from the Parks and Recreatlon Department aa to whero they want the park.
Commissioner Herbst 4tated the plans shaw the location ~f the. pa~k.
Mr. Ninfield stated he thought the site shvwn Is the locatton Parks and Recreation
Commisslan wants for the par{c and the developer has no problem wtth provtding the
tand or dotng the grad(ryg except thst they would like to do the grading En
conJ u~ction with the de velopment of aree 6.
Jim Ruth. Deputy Ctty Manager~ er~iv~d and Commissloner Barnes explalned that the
Planning Commissio~ has approved a motion to approve these two tracts in conjunction
wtth grading of the psrk site at the same time.
Jim Ruth explained their analysts of the proJected revenue of the park In-lieu fees
i n ~ecentier tndi cated that aress 1~ 2, 4, 5 and 6 woul d generate S278, 310 and wi th
the i~creased denslty the totaa would pr~bably be $300.000 and that thatr best
esttmate is that it woutd oost SSO,OOQ aer acre ta d~velap thG park and that the
g ~ading would cost S50~000 and at thefr lsst meeting before the City Council, they
figured the proJect would just about break even.
Commissio~er Herbst explained the motion for approval for the two t~acts for sreas 4
and 5 for 312 units was condltioned that the park site be graded at the same time
because it Is not knawn when araa 6 will be developed and that tha in-lleu fees of
approximately $156~060 bm used to devclop something at this park for ehe children in
Lhe area. Ne stated the quastion hes baen brought up whether or not tha stte shaan
on the plan Is the site desirod by the Parks and Recreation Oepartn~nt and explatned
3i2~ia~
NINUTEa~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNlMG COMMISSION~ MARCN 2;, 1981 81-165
the site is Just east of the roed that goea to area 5. Mr. Ruth ~eplied that Is tha
dasl nd si te.
Mr. Ruth stated ha would h~v~ no p~oblen~ with the motton •s spproved beceuse
obvtously It is lass expenslve to dev+~lop the psrk new snd thet they could get sonw
use out of It r~ow by providing Irrigatton dnd some Improveme~ts.
Commis~lone~ Ne~bst explained the ~ration wss also passed recomme~dtng that ~11 in-
ileu fees generaced from this area be designated for that perticular perk site and
Mr. ttuth repliad that thet Is thalr Intent and fs conslstent with thoir plans.
Commisstoner Herbst stated atnce it is not knawn when flre~ 6 will devalop and with
312 homes bein9 proposed, It is felt by the Planning Conmlaslon that the pa~k
factlities are neod~d ~aw.
M~. Ruth stated he would have no problem with that ~equi ~en+ent.
Mr. Wtnfield stated it would be consistent with the pubilc facititles plan to
dedicate the park slte ~s part of the final recommendatlon of these t~o tracts and tf
they are nat in a positlon to grade at that tlme~ could post a cash bond of SSA~000
to guarantee that tt is done wtthin 18 mc~nths. f~e statod they believed srea 6 will
be developed withtn a pe~lod of time that will not create any probinms and that the
ci ty wi 11 have the park in-1 leu feeY ond almost 6 acras of land and he fel t that
would be fair snd ts what would be req~ired of any other developer.
Chal rman Tnlar stated that i s not necessari 1y what would be roqui red of ~+~y other
developer pointing out that if these two trncts were revieNed on their own merits,
they wauld heve to provide on-site recreational faclllties su~h as tennts courts,
swimming pools, etc.
M~. Wlnfteld stated that if they are requt~ed to qrade at a time when the earth ts
not usabia and they are not roady for development, then that could causQ matntenance
problems and potentiat liabiltty problems.
Commissloner Bushore asked if the dev~loper would be wt111ng to take z or 3 of these
lots and provide on-site recreational facilities such as tennts courts or swimming
poo 1 s .
Mr. ~linfleld rep)ied thoy woutd not be able to do that. Ne stated they are esking
for a single-femtly development and are in a positton to pay tha fees required. He
stated he understands what the Planntng Cornr~isston is trying to acc.ompiish but the
one prablem he hes is that they ha~re been wo~king with the City Council and staFf for
o~e year and if the Planning Commission. Parks end ~~reation Commissio~ or other City
Comnissions can change the time frame~ thon that ch~nges the basis of their economic
Judgment made a week ago to the City Council to spend 510 miilion dollars. He stated
that area is going to get bui 1 t out 1 f there a~a buyers and i f there are no buyers
for the hanes, then they have made a big mistake. Ne stated thG Ctty Counci) and
staff have agreed and now the Planning Commission ls telling them somethtng
dl fferent.
Chairman 7olar refe~red to Mr. Winfield's suggestion for en 18-nnnth time pertod and
stated he would bn willtng to s upport the originai motion predtcated on the
3/23/8t
~.
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCN 23~ 1981 81-166
develapmsnt of th~ park site within o~c yeer or the daveloper posting a bond that tf
area 6(s not dev~loped wtthin ane ye~r the grsdtng is gusrenteed.
Commlssloner Barnes clarifled that the agrQOment has ~lrea~dy been approved by the
Ctty Council that the devmloper wtll provicie the psrk stte and the in~lieu feea and
th~t the Clty wtil develop th~ perk and the quaation is wMether or not the City
would bes doing the greding.
M~. Wtnfleld explalned that one of the modtficattons was that the developer wo.:ld do
tha g~ading and that the City will dev~elop the pa~k. Ha sCated they havo made other
gradinq commitments based on the engtnaers saying they have a balance. Mr. Winfield
:tated they would mret Chainna~ Tolsr's suggestlon haifwey and s ugg~sted one year
from the dste the ce~ttficates of occupency sre Issued. Ne stated they are going to fina-
liza the map snd wtli Fost a bond. Ne stated wtthln a year there will not be ;12
famllles living in that area trying ta us~ the park. He steted thers Are other
areas to be graded~ thet roads have to be relocated and constructed end it is not
marely s matte~ of seying they wi11 do $50~000 w~rth of grading, and that it ~-il) be
a groat expense.
Gommisalonar 9ushore stated the Planning Commtssloners are land planners and must
take these things into consideratton. Ne stated he fnlt the developer can elthe~
take the motion a~ offered and try to work tt out with the City Councll or offer some
compramise sud~ as providing some on-stte recreational facilittes and still pay the
park i n-1 ieu fees.
Mr. Winfield asked that the origina) motion be clarifled because it was not perfectly
clanr whather or not they are requlred to dedicate area 6 or merely qrade it.
Mr. Ruth stated the developer would not get credit for anything that is provided to
the No meawners Associatlon and the clty sttl) needs the park sit~ snd the developer
still has to pay the par~: in-1(eu fa~s. Ne stated if they did provide somethtng for
the flomeewners Associatlon, 1 t might help mitigate the problem immediately but there
is a p roblem when outsiders want to use those fsciiltles. plus tt is enother
maintensnce headeche. He suggested the Commisslon stick wtth the original S Plus
acres and if there is anywsy to advance the grading with~ut causing problems lt would
be a great appro~ch and if only part of the houses a~e built~ whetever fees are patd,
that mcn~r would bR put into developing something for thls park, but thst he Is
concerned because the cfty dicl negotiaLe in good faith a~d he felt they have the site
and the fees tied down and hc would not want to be in the position ~f causing
problert~ with their englneering pisns.
Gc~mmisstoner Nerbst statcd th~ cancern Is that it is possible area 6 would not be
developed for many years and the Planntng Commisslon is trying to come up with
something reasonable. Ne referro d to the petitianer's statement that the gr~ding be
conditioned on bding done 18 montfi s from the time of occupancy and suggested that it
ba conditioned on one year from tirr~ of issuance of bullding permits.
Mr. Winfield agreed on one y ear f rom tlme of issuance of bulldi~eg permits ~nd stated he
understands the Planning Commission's position and believes part of the language of the
pub.llt.facliities plan Is to dedtcate the park site as a part of the final tract map
and that they wtll bond to guarantes the grading.
3/23i8t
~. ;,
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ r~-acN 23~ 1~81 81-16~
Chairman Tolar st~ted he would Qo aio~g wtth 18 mo~ths from time th• bul idt~g parmtla
ara d~a~wn.
Commissioner Herbst stated davelop~n wili put up a sign stattng there i~ going to be
a park on that site whtch wi11 help them se11 thelr houses and that In the past these
stgns have bRen poated and then the pa Nc never deveioped and he doaa not want to see
that happen hore. He stated h• does not want to be unreasonable but Lhat the
dev~loper cannot give him a definate time fo~ the developmont of aree 6 and he feit
that this is a matter of buying s"pig tn a poke".
Chairtnan Tolar eaked if the developer ts willing to stlpulate to the grading wtthtn
18 nnnths from the time of the issua~ce of the building permtts and Mr. Winfield
~eplted he Is wtlling to meke thst stlputation.
Commisstoner Nerbst stated he would uffer a change tn hts m~tion that Kaufinen b Broad
would dedicate the 5 P~~ acre site of ground and grede the site wtthin IS rr~nths af
issuanca of building permlt or post a bo~d to guarantee the gradtng wlthin 18 months.
Jatk Irhite~ Assistant Ctty Attorney, suggested a new conditlon be added to the
approval of Tracts 10983 and 1098A to the effect that prior to the approvel of
recordation of the final tract map~ the developer shalt dedlcate the park site show~
on the plana and wlthin 18 rmnths of tl~e issuance of building p~rmits~ the park site
shall be graded and a cash bond (n the amount of 550~000 shall be deposited with the
Ctty to gu~~antee performance of the g~ading at the time of the appr~val ot xhe finai
t~act map.
Conunisstoner Nerbst added that the 9rading should be done in accordance with the city
standards.
Commis~toner tierbst offered a motian that the cc~ndition as stated by Attorney 4hite
be added to his original motton~ motion secanded by Commissloner Barnes and MOTION
CARRI ED.
Jack Whtte asked that Report and Recommendation f be actea on pertatning to Waiver of
Lot Line Requirement.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Fry a~d
MO ION CARRIED~ that the Anaheim City Pianning Commtssion does hereby recommend to
the City Council that the waiver of hillstde grading ordinance far Tent+etive Tract
Map Na. 10984 be approved as it relates ta the location of the slopes of lot line to
the top of slopes wtthin Tract No. 10981~ loceted south of Santa Ana Canyon Road both
~east a~d west of Weir Canyon Road.
3i23ia~
_ ~
!' ~ f '~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNINr CoMMISSION, MARC11 23~ 1981 O1-i68 3
lTEM N0. 8: EIR NECATIVE OCCLARATION ANO TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 11~+A(1:
.~~...._
OWNERS: VERMOtIT 4-PLEX~ 1263~J Qrc~khurst Avenue, Sulte D~ Gardan Crov~e~ CA ~2F~+0.
ACENT: TRI-S7ATE ENr,1~~EERINr, COMPANV, f~1; South Reymond Avenue, Fulle~ton. CA ~x63~~.
Prap~~ty describe~ as • r~cc~ngularly-shaped pa~ce) of lend consistinq of
approximet~ ~ 3•Z7 ec~es~ G29 We~t Yermont Avenua. Property presently cla ssife d RM-
1200 (RESIDEt~~IAI~ MULTIPLE-FM11LY) 20NE.
TENTASIV[ TRACT REQUEST: TO ESTA~IISIt l1 1-LOT. 21-DUILDIN~, RM-t2n~ SUnDIV ISION.
Thoro was no one I~dicati~~g their presence in apposttlan to sub)ect ~eque s L, and
although the staff report was not read. it is referred to and mede s pert of th~
mtnutes.
Walter Mooac~ Tri-State Enqin@ering Company~ agent~ wa3 present to answer any
questlons.
THE PUBLIC HEAkINr, wAS CLOSED.
Commissioner King clarificd that the apariments will not be sold as seaarate unlts
ancl M~. Noose tndlcated that is correct and it witl be so recorded on the flnal map.
Jack Nh(te~ Assistant f''Y Attcrney~ statcd staff would like to roqu~st t hat
Condltion No. G L•e dele.e~ from the Interdcportmental Gommittce recomme~d atlons.
ACTION: Commissioner King offared a motion~ seconded by Commisstoner Fry and MOTION
~R~U~ that the Anaheim City Planning Com~isslon has revlewed the propo~al t~
establlsh a 1-lot~ 21-building RM-12n0 subdivislon on a rectangularly-sh a ped parcel
of lend consisting of approximetely 3.27 acres~ hevinc~ a frontage of app roxima tely
467 feet on the north sicie of Vermont Avenue (GZ~ West Vermont Avenue); and does
hereby approve the Negattv~ ~eclaratlon from the requfrement to prepa~e sn
environmental impact report on the basis that there would be no stgnlficant
indlvidual o~ cumulative adverse envtronmental tmpact due to the approval of this
Neyattve Declaration since the Anahelm Ceneral Plan designates th~ s~abJeet propertv
for medlum de~sity residentiat land us~s ca+xnrnsurate with the proposal; that no
sensiCive environmental impacts are involved in the praposal; that the Initial Study
submttted by the petitioner indicates no siqnificant indivldual o~ cumulatlve adverse
environmental impacts; and that the Neg~tive Detlar~tion substantiating t he foreyoing
findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Pianninfl Department.
Commissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Cortmissloner Fry and MOTION CARRIED.
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission cbes hereby ffnd that the proposed
subdivlsion tagether with its design and tmprovement is conststent with the City of
Maheim General Plan pursuant to Gove~nment Code Sectlon 66473.5 and doe s the refore
approve Tentetlve Map of Tract No. 11400 for a 1-lot, 21-buildinc~ RM-120 O sub division
subJect to the fallawing conditions.
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 114n0:
1. That should this subdivialon be develeped as more than cxie subdivision, emch
subdiviston the~eof shall be submitted in tentative form fc+r approval.
2. That the originai docwnenta of the covenants, condttions, and rest~icttons,
and a latter addressed to daveloper's title compeny suthorizing reco rdatton
3/23/81
~
c
~
~'; MINUTES~ 11NAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ MAltCN 2;~ 1981 81-169
the~eof ~ shal l be submi t ted to the C i ty Atto~ney's of f i ca end ap~~oved by
the Ctty Attorney's Office~ Public Utilltles Ospar ~ment~ Bulldtng Olvlstot~,
and the Enqtn~erinq Divlsio~ prtor to fin~l trACt ~ap epprovel. Seld
docwiw~ts. •• ~pproved~ sl~al i be f11ed and ~ecorded i~ the OPfice of the
Ora~9e County Raco~der.
3. Th~t ftre hydrants shall be installed and chargecf as ~equired and determined
to be neceassry by the Chlaf of the Fire Depa~tment p~tor to npproval of
f{nel tract ma~.
4. Thet trash storeye areas ~ahall be provided in acca ~dence with spproved plans
on file with tha Office of the Exetutive Dtrector of PubllcVlorks, prio~ ta
ap~rovel of finel tract map.
y. Prlor to spproval of the ftnal tract map~ the eppl icsnt shell present
evidence satisfectory to the Chief 9utlding Inspe e tor thet the unit ts In
conS'armence witl~ the flotse I~sulatlun Sxandards spectfled In the Callfornla
Adminiatrstlve Code~ Title 25.
6. That Individual units in thls subdivision shall no t bc sold, TF,is tract map
allows for the sale of complete bulldlnqs only.
ITEM N0~. : EIR NEGATIVE_DEC_lA_RATION. WAIVER OF CODE REQUI REMENT AND COND TIONAL USE
~rT'F~fO. 21 ~; -
frilNERS: RAYMOIaD ~. SPE1~A~, 6~3? Avenida de Santiago~ Anahe Im. C~ 92807. Ar~EN'f:
CARL KARCIIER Et4TERPRISES~ BOI3 110LaEN~ 1200 No~th He~bor Bou lcvard~ Anehelm, C4 92801.
Property described as an Irregularly-shaped pa~ce) of land conststing of
approximately 0.9 acre~ located at the northe~st co~ner of La Pa1Ma Ave~ue and
Impe~tai Highway~ 5701 East La Palma Avenue (Car1's Jr. Re s teurant). Property
presently cl~ssified CL{SC) (COMMERCIAL, LIMITED SCENIC CdRRIDOR OYEALA1f; 20NE.
CONDITIOIIAL USE REQUEST: TO EXPANU AN EXIS'fING DRIVE-THROUCiI RESTAURANT MI'TN WAIVERS
OF: (e) MiNIMUM NUMaER bF PARKING SPACES AND (b) MINIMUM L ENGTH OF DRIV~-T1IROUGIi
LANE.
Ther~ was no one indicsttng their prasence in opposttion to subJect raquest, and
although the scaff report was not read~ it ts r~ferred to and made a part of the
minutes.
Commissioner Bushore ueclared s confllct of interest as de f ined by Anahe(m City
Planning Commissto~ Resolutlon No. PC76-157, adopttng a Conflict of Interest Cade for
the P18nnEng Commission~ a~d Government Code Section 3625 ~t seq.~ in that tn I~is
cepa~city as a rea) rstate broke~~ he has worked wtth the Karcher organization
recently a~d. pursuant to the provislons of the above code s~ declared ta ~he Chairma~n
that he wes wtthdrawing fran the hearing in connection witla Conditionel Use Permit
No. 218~- a~d would not teke part in etthe~ the discussion or the voting the~aon, and
has not discussed this matter with any m~nber of the Planning Commlsslo~. Thereupon~
Commissio~er Bushora left the Council Chamber at 3:40 p.m.
Don Glenn, Cart Karcher Enterprfses, stated the obJective oP their appiication Is not
to generatn more t~affic or add to the exlsting problems in the area but ta mitigate
any contributia~ Carl's mekes to those problem~. Ne stst~d the total probiem in
thla area is beyond the scope af this applicatio~. He sta ted they heve worked wlth
3/23/81
_ ~ 1
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 23, 1981 81-1y0
tha Planning ~taff a~d agres with tho staff npc~rt a~d expl~ined the oxis~ing
. fecllity 1s not adequete to handlg tlia present demard a~nd the proposa) is tn add to
'` the seattng capactty (n the dtninp room for a total of 87 seets whlch witl effect
th ree changas pe r hour I n the d t n I ng racxn e~d that tha d i n i ng room end the d r i ve-
th~ough lane wt i) be servad by Sep!lPrYe kitchens. He steted the drlve-through lane
(s a now concept to ellevlate some of the current stacking problems. 11e steted they
feel thta now conftgurotlon wi 11 raduce the stacktn~ nnd help the servlce ttme.
~
Mr. Glenn st,eted they are requesting e weiver of the mt~lmu~n ~umber of parki~g spacos
they are becoming a~art of the shopping center; that In the past they could not get
everyone in the shopping center to agrec to thelr proposal; thet they came before the
Commisston two years dgo and their appllcatton was cont~sted by the shopping center
tanants and the landlord, but thet they have slncc worked out those problems. Ile
stated staff w+~s co~cerned because eddittonel employees will need addlttonal parktng
ancl they have assured s~aff that there wi 11 be addi tlonal empioyees per shlft but at
the present time only 4 employees drtve cars nnd m~st of thotr ~mployees do ~ot heve
autam~bt Ies. 1~e passed out actua) cor counts of the trafftc tn the shopping center
and stated they feel the exlsting capacity from a pfactical standp~int is adequ~te
~nd that the Justiflcatlon for the w,iver fs warranted. Ne presented phatographs to
show therr are pr,rking spaces aval leble at al i ttmes,
Mr. Glenn steted the second waiver I~ for mintmum i~ngth of drive-through lane end
they have discussed th(s with staff and che ersginee~s agreed that thls wtl) help the
sttuation in the future. Nc stated this set-up is simt lar to many banks or savings
and loan facilities and explained that e hopper is us~d to dellver the food. Mr.
Glenn passed out brochures destrlbing thls e~ulpmen~.
He sta~~~~! ,!,• existtng leases which are ho~ored by the shapping center owner have
cleuses i~~ ~~,~;,n that the approv~l of this particuler applicatton wil) have no affect
on the posstble future expansion of th~ shopping centcr and statad sane lessees have
expresseci plans for expanslon even though no plans have been subm(tted to the city to
date and that Cari Karct~er Enterpr(ses does not want thts appllcation to Jeopardize
those oxpansion plans.
THE PUBLiC ~IEARING WAS CLOSEU.
Commissioner Herbst stated he k~ows this site very r,rell and according ta Paul Stnger~
7raffic Engineer, part of the prublem may be resolved tn Apr11 because the Stata has
control of Imperia~l Hiyhwary to the freeway and tha[ It is possibie two lefc turn
yignals off La Palma onto Imperia) wtll be (mpiemented. tle stated 9t1$ of the traffic
into the shoppi ng cente~ goes back towards Anaheim Hi l is and twa left turn poekecs
would increase the flow and not block the driveway. Hc stated if this does not
happen, the tenants tn the shoppl~g center sho~ld talk to the owner about re)ocating
the driveway further east approximetely 1~0 fset. He stated he has no ab)ection to
this expansion and if th~ Izft turn nockets do not solve the problem, then the
driveway should be relac.~-.ed.
Chai rman Tolar stated he has no obJection to the expans ion but th~t he wes opposed to
i t 2• 1/2 years ago for the same reason that ~~e i s opposed to I t taday. He stated he
felt two lanes for stacking wi l l ellminate a targe portion of the landscape buffer
and that traffTc going north i~to the shopping center off La Pelma must cross on-
gofng traffic tu get tnto the ordering lanes at the Carl's operatton snd thaL
problem wi l l not be resolved wi th this expanston. He stated thts problem should not
be blamed enti rely on Caris or the ahopptng center vwner because the Planning
beceusA
.::~
3/23/81
~
~ ~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSS10N, MARCH Z3~ 1981
1
81-171
Corr~n+ission helped to de~lyn it. -ia stated he thtnk~ Mr. Singer's suggestlon to cloee
the t~+o axisting driveways and redesiqn one lerge inflress and eg ress would hetp to
•11Mi nete the probiam all the way •round~ He stated if that could be accomplishad,he
would h~ve no problem with the expenilon.
M~. Glenn ~tated M~. Singer had dlscussed the pcssibillty of relocating the ~hopping
cente ~ drivewey wtth hlm and that they hsd felt lt wes beyond the scope of this
appli c~tion. Ns stated they had a diffitult time getting everyone in the shopping
cent~er to agree with this nroposai and he ~greed that tha traffic crossing the
tr:fflc alale ts a bsd situ~tio~ end suggast~d they could stretghten tha lanes out
p~ra tlel wlth tha north property ltna to eliminate that crossing. No brtefly
revl ewed the plans wlth the Planning Commisslon and explrined his suggeatton.
Raymond Spehar~ property awne~~ st~ted he felt eltminattng the twa approeches wouid
create a lang drtveway to the Carl's fecl 1 t ty and el t~nin~te A lot ef the present
park i ng.
Chai rMan Tolar felt parking would be gained by closing the two accesses and he would
then question whetha~ or nat the Mo ardering lanes would be necess~ry.
Commissloner Herbst stated he thought Carls was trying to qet the cars through the
faci iity fsster by havtng e separate kitche~ and twa lanes.
Commissioner ~arnes felt with tha one middle drive+way being closed. that the problams
woul d be lessenad. She stater there is a nic~ btg entrance existing and sane parking
wou id have to be eliminated taw~rds Caris. She atated ahe did ~at tht~k it wi11
involve a large capttal outlay.
Mr. Spehar stated the plana would have to be revtsed~ but It sppears that the Mo
lan~s through the drive-through would solve the whole probiem of cers backing up from
th~s drivrtl~rough lanc.
Chairman Tolar felt it is unfair to put the whole problem an Carls~ but that this ts
an opportunity for the Planninq Comhission to try to correct some Qf the other
p roblems. He stated the problem is with thbt one driveway and not with Carls.
Mr. Speha~ stated he wlll work something out and asked for s twv-week conttnuance to
me~t with tha petitianer.
Cha i rman To 1 ar asked the pe t i t i oner i f he v+ou i d 1 i ke a two-+veek con t i nuance and
poi~ted out he did not think any of the Cortmisstoners ere opposed co the expanston of
Carls.
Co~wmisslo~er He~bst suggested appt'ovtng the proJect subJect to the drfvsway being
re ~ocated and Mr. Glenn stated if evc ryone In the center cioesn't agree with the
p~oposal. then they do not have a proJect. He requested a tv+o-r+eek co~tinuance.
ACTION: Conmisstoner Herbst offered a motlon~ secanded by Cortmissioner Ktng and
MO FI CARRIED~ that consideration of the aforemantio~ed item be sontinued to the
re gularly-schedulad meeting af Aprii 6, 19 81 st the request of the petitioner.
Cw~mi sstoner Busho~e retur~ed to the Counci 1 Chamber at 4:05 p. m.
3iz3ia,
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PI,ANNiNG COMMISSION. MARCN 23~ 1981 81•171A
ITE:`1 Np. 10: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ NAIVER QF CODE REQUIREMENT ANQ C~NDITIO
ONNCRS: ANAHEIM MOTEL LTD.~ ATTENTIO~~; E ~WARD CARL ANDES~ 1331 Eest Ketella Avenue~
Anahelm~ CA ~280y. Property descrtbed as a rectangularly-shAped pnrce) of land
consiiting of approximetely 4.$ ecre~~ 1331 East Katella Avenue (Ramada Inn).
Property presantly clessified Ml, (INDUSTRIAL~ LIMITEQ) ZONE.
CONOITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT A RES TAURANT WIT11 ON-SALE OF ALCONOLIC BEVERAGES
IN THE ML ZONE WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUN NUhSE3ER OF PARKING SPACES.
There was no one Indlceting t~ielr presence In oppa~ltion ta sublect request~ end
although thc staff report was not read~ lt is ~eferred to and mAde a part of the
minutes.
J. Ward Daws on~ 15012 aedhill~ statcd I~c h As a qu~stlon conGerning the T~afftc
Engtneer's recommendation thet the Nesterly drivr.way be closed and polnted out thts
conditiana) us~ ~ermit was ortginally apn ~~vcd In 197A for the Ramsd~ Inn with
cl~culation aa sl~own and that they hnd workad witr~ the city at that ti~ne concerning
the dri vev+ays ,
THE PUf3LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
ACTION; Commissloner 6arnes offc~red a mot tpn, ~econdrd by Commissloncr Fry and
MOTION CARRIED~ that the Anaheim Clty Pla nning Cammtssion hss revie-ved the proposal
to permit a restaurant wlth on-sale alcoholic beverages in the ML (Industrlal~
Limitsd) Zone wi th watver of minimum number of pdrking sp~ces or~ a rectangularly-
shaped parce) of land conststing of approximetely 1~.8 acres~ having a fro~t~ge of
approxlmately 3;0 feet on thc north side of Katella Avenue (1331 East Katelle
Avenue); and does h ercay apc+rove thc Nnga Xivc Qeclaratian f~om the ~equirement to
prepare an environrr~ental impoct report on the bests that there would be no
stgnlflcent Indivlduel ar cumul~ttve adve rse envlronmental impact due ta the approval
of thls Negative Detlaratton since ttir Anaheim Ce~ral Plan designates the subject
property for gcne~al (~dustrial I~nd uscs .:omn~ensurste wlth the propc~sal; that no
scnsitivo environmcntal impacts are invatved in the propossl; that the Inlttal Study
submltted by the petitioner Indlcetes no si~nificant individua) or cumulative adverse
envfronmental (mpacts; and that the Pleg~cive Deciaretion substanttating the foregoing
findings is an f1)e ln the Clty of Anahelrn Plenntng Department.
Commissione r Barncs offercd a motlan~ seco~dcd by Commissloner Fry and MOTION
CARRIk:O~ that the M at~eim City Plen~ing Comntsston does hereby grant watver of code
requirement on the ba~sis thaC the restau~ant is proposed in canJunction with an
exlstiny rr+ote) and a certatn percenteye of the guests da arrlve by transportatlon
modes othor than private automobiles.
Cortmissioner Barnes offered Resalutlon Ho. PC81-60 and moved for its paas~ge and
adapCion th~t the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commission does hereby grant Co~dltlonal Use
Permic No. 2185 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations.
Prior to voting on the ~esoluiton Comnissioner Herbst referred to the westerly
drlveway shown on the pia~s stacing he sees no beneflt to the proJect havtng it the
and it elim~nat~ss 3 or 4 parking spaces. He stated the oriyinal plan wa~ flve but
now that driveway hss been blocked aff hy tf~e restaurent.
3/23/81
~ ` ~ ' )
MiNUTES~ ANIWEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH Z3~ 1981 $1•1718
Commtsstone~ King stated the T~affic Englneer wanted the driv~sy closed because of
safety with peopte trytng to make a left turn while othar t~af1'tc Is coming out the
oth~r way .
Commissloner Bouas asked if the pettttoner Is willl~g to close the driveway end Mr.
Dar+son eteted thct woutd have qulle a serlous affect on the ove~all circulatton and
felt it would be mcre af a hazard.
Chstrmsn Tolar asked (f the drivetwey is for exit only and Mr. Dawson ~epli~d that i~
has nat been speclfied buc they could make it a~xit only If nacassary.
Commtssioncr Bornes stated sha does not sec a~ything w~ong with the driYeway and that
Paul Singer Is prob~bly conce~nad about left turns out of the drivewt~y.
Mr. Dawsan pointed out ta Gortmissioner Herbst that the site plan has not changed f~om
the ariginal plans and the driveway always did loop around the restaurent.
Gommissionc~ Nerbst ~tnted out thet Mr. Singer w~s concerned about the counter fiew
of treffic wlth traffic turning left and Che ather cars turninq rlqht.
Commissioner Barnes stat~d lf this had been reviewed as Mo separate picces of
proparty. it would bQ the seme sttuatl~n. She stated when she liad rev(cwed the
property today she sAw s potcntial problem but that the sar+~e probiem exists ell over
the city. She stated her resolution would be without closing the drivewny and
ellminatiny Londition No. 4.
Commissioner He~bst suggested that that drivcwny be postcd for right turns only
because cros~ing Katella to the left is a problem and Is not a safe condttion and
Commissloner 8uahore ind(cated he did not think thet would solve thc problem.
Commissioner go~nes reoffered her resolutio~ grantin~ Conditiona) ilse Permit No. 2185
sub)ect to the petitioner's stipulatlon ta post tho westerly driveway for right turns
anly and subject to lnterdepartmentel Comm(ttee recoawr+endAttans.
On roll call, Cho foregoing resolutlon was passed by the followinq vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: aARNES, 6(~UAS, FRY~ HER85T, KING~ TQLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BUSHORE
ABS~N?: COMMiSSIdNERS: NONE
3/23/81
\. ' 1
MINUTES, ANANEIM ClTY PLANNING CpMMISSIQN~ MARCH 23~ 1981 81-172
ITEM N0. llt EIR NECATIVE OECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PEahIIT N0. 2186s
OWNERS: CIIARLES L~ AND CAROL M. PANCIIERI, 8542 Whites~le~ Cfr~le~ ~luntington Deach~
cA 9264~~ AGENT: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AUTO BRdKERAG~ INC.~ ATTENTION: JACK FR4ST~
3601 E~st Mlraloma~ A~~helm~ CA 92807• Proparty detcribed as an irregularly-ahsped
p~rce) of tand consisting af approximately 0.~1 ac~e, located ~t the northeest corner
of Miraloma Avenua snd Tustin Avenue~ ;GOi East Mlralc~me Avenue~ Prope~ty prei~~tly
classifled ML (INDUSTRIAI~ LIMITfO) ZONE.
CONDITIONAL USE REQUES7: TO PERr11T AN AUTO AND TRUCK uHOIESALiNf; ANO aECO~~DITIONING
FACILITY IN Tf~E ML ZONE.
There wss no 4ne indtcating thetr presence in onPosttton to subJect request~ and
atthough the staff report r+as not reed, it ts referrod to and made a nart of the
minutes.
Jack Frost~ representtng Southe~n Californta Auto Brokeragc, stnted they ere wt111ng
to comply with reconmondad condittons but quostloned cl~sinq the westerly driveway.
Condttion No. 1~ because they feel (t would be e hez~rd snd would bc Incnnvenlent.
He stet~d thoy would be wllltng to post the driveway for right turns only.
T11E PUBLIC I~EARING WAS CLOSED.
Mr. Frost responded to Commissloner ilerbst's questlon co~cerning the use nf the
property and explained the trucks would be pickup trucks or smal) trucks and
explainnd they would wholesale the vehlclea to dealers only. He steted they have
nathinc~ to Jc~ with ttie business next door unless they want to put sn automoblle (n
the euctton. t1e stated all vehtcles -vill bc storcd instde and all the work will be
done insldc and that moat of their work (s done over the telephon~ tlnding dealers
and the vehicles are delivered to the dealers or they pick them up. He stated they
will not be uslny transport trucks. Ne stated there wlll be ~o dlaplay vehtclea
parked outsidc for sale.
Chairmsn Tolar asked what type equtpment wili be Installed and if the butlding wii)
be modifleJ to accommodate thls usa and Mr. Frost replted there atll be no
modiflcations to the bullding and that the tease is far two yesers.
Chairman Tolar stated he wi11 support the use for Mo years only because of the
nunt,er of prablems with the use next door. He stbted he wnuld not want to sea any
vehicles dlsplsyed for sale outside~ ~+alntt~g out that th(s (s r good tocation on the
corner fo~ display. Ha added that he would ask thet thn co~dttionel use perMtt be
reviewed far vfolation if he sees any vehicles parked outside.
Mr. Frost stated the t~ucks are oniy e sma11 p~o~tion of th~tr business; that they
have been in this tocation for a fe~ months and It ts r ve ry qutet law-key operation
and that he wes aware of tho problems next door.
Chai rn~en Toler steted he agrees with the petttioner that thc drivewey should not be
clased.
3/23/81
~~
i ~
MINUTES~ ANANEIN CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ r~nacti 23~ 1981 81•173
ACTIONa Commitslonsr King offerod a nntlan~ seco~ded by Commt:stone~ Herbst and
t~O~ION CARRIED, th~t tha An~h~tm Lity Planning Commission has revlewed tha praposal
ta permit a~ automobile and smail truck whol~talinq ind reco~ditlonl~g facillty In
the ML (Indu=trial~ Llmitad) Zone on a rect~ngulArly-~haped parcal of land consisting
of approximately 0.9 ~cre~ located at the norths~at corner of MlralamA Avenue snd
Tustin Avenue (3G01 ~ast Miraloma Avenue); •nd does ha~eby approve the Negative
Declaretton from tha requlrament to preqare en environmental tmpact ~eport on the
basls that there would be no siqnificant individu~l or cumulative edverse
environmantal Impact due to the approvsl of this Neg~tive Dectaratlon since the
Anahelm General Plen dasign~t~~ the subJect property for generei tndustrtal land ua~s
canmensurate with th~ propo~al; thet no sensittve anviranment++l Impscts are Invatved
in the p roposal; that the Inlttei Study submttted by the petitloner indicates no
signfficant individusl or cumul8tlve adverse envlronn+ent~l impacts; and th~t the
Negativo D~claratlon substanttattng the foregc~ing findt~gs Is or+ ftle (n the Clty of
Anaheim Planntny Uepartmant.
Commissionar King offered Resolution No. PC81-61 and moved for Its passage and
adoptlon Lhat the A~ahetm City Planning Commisslon daes hereby gr~nt Conditto~al Use
Permlt No. 2186 for a perlod af twn years~ deletin~ Conditlon No. 1 and sub)ect tu
Intardopartmenta) Cammtttee recorrn~ndntlons.
Commissloner Harbst aaked that the resolutlon show that this use ts permttted for
automobtles and amail trucks not to exceed 1-1/2 to~ only.
On rall cali~ the foragoing ~esolution was pasaed by the foltaving vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONER5: BARN~S~ BOUAS. BUSIIORE. FRY~ IIERBST~ KiNG~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMIS510NER5: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
3/23/81
~ r
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCN 23, 1981
VE
WAIVER OF
T
81•17b
UITI
OWNERS: R. N. AND THEQOORA R. SIEGELE. P. 0. Box 3284, Anaheim~ CA ~2803. Prope~ty
described as a rectsngularly-sheped parcel of l~nd conalsting of approximately 3~66
acres~ located st the northaest corner of South Street ehd aose Straet, 919 Esst
South Straet. Property presently cl~salfied ML (INDUSTRIAL, LIMITEO) ZONE~
COt~DiTIOHAI USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT A RECYCLING CENTER ANO RV STORAG~ FACILITY !N TIiE
ML ZONE WITII W AIVERS OF: (a) MINIMUM LANDSCAPED SET~ACK~ (b) MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGIIT,
(~) REQUIRED ENCLOSUSRE OF OUTDOOR USES AI~D (d) MININUM NUMDfR OF PAaKIN~ SPACES.
There was one person indicating her presence in oppoaitton to sub~~ct request~ and
although tl~e staff report was not read~ It ts referred ta and made a p+~~t of the
minutes.
Ray Sieyela. pet(ti4ner, stated he ls requesting a walver of the required curbs and
guttors on South Street because he needs that ~rea for parktng in front of the office
builciing; that th~y -~avc a llmited area at that end of the building far parking and
the only other parking av~ilablr would he a~proximately b0~ feQt north of the office
bu{lding. tie stated the praperty (rxnedletely south and across tl~e street enJoys the
s~me privilege wltt~ parking fecing into their building wlth mfnimal setbacks and
stated hs has pictur~s of tl~e adjaccnt propertlas.
Mr. Siegele referred to Condition No. ~t requiring an 8-foot high block wall
cornpleteiy surrou~ding the property and st~ited he Joes not feel that Is necessary
because tl-ey are surraundcd on the north by the Qtxl~ Cup p~+rl:ing 1ot and storage
yard and tt~ere Is a chainiink fence seporating the propertfes; th~t to the east thry
are abutting an alley whtch is abutted o~ the other side by a vehicular storage lot
with no screening; that this proporty Is adeauately protected from the vl~ of East
Str~et; thet abendoned uater Street is on thc north end af the property ~nd there ts
no reaso~ to scr~en that side. Ile stated their primary reason For not wanttng to
screen~ other than the financlal aspects with soncrete block walls costing S50 per
foot~ i; that they havc had numerous burglartcs at their present facillty and there
is no way for people to see tnto the property with the solid w~li. He stated the
neighbor across the street from subjeGt property has catled the police several times~
and ff the yroperty was solidly screoned~ the nelghbor would not be able to see whc
was going into the property. Ne stated the screentng an South St~eet adequately
blocks the vlew of the property except far the drivea~ay.
Mr. Siegale statecl thcy have proposed s G-foot hlgh cAncrete b1oGk wall on South
Street that would extend to the driveway from the slleY to wtthtn 20 feet of the
office buildiny and extend down th~ a11eY 5~ ~r ~~ feet and that areaaidecent~lookinr
the ma~ntenance shop for thefr trucks. He stated they are proposTng 9
p)an~er for thc fro~t of the buitding. t{e stated he would have no obJection to
makfng the 6-focyt dedlcation conditionally so that when the property ts developed in
the future the requirements wifl be met.
He stateci hs did not contact the person in the ~~anitatton division rega~ding the
t~ash, b~cause rather than havtng the 5'x a' trash storage containars~ which ts not
3/Z3i81
i
/
MINUT~S~ ANAHEIM C11Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAACM 23~ 1981 81•175
adequate for thelr needs~ th~y will have l~rga
wti) take care of th~fr awn trssh r~rnovai. Ne
the butidtng. Ne stated they have hsd many pr~
tocation but hava mede tremendous devclo~nents
ecceptable facility end that this new t~cility
feit that wt11 be a good development.
roll-off t~ucks with 2A-foot bins and
ststed they do have ffre sprinkiert In
ablems in the patt et their old
and edvancements and fee) It ts an
is ebout throe times ss targ~ and he
Patrtcla Pletrok~ 1008 South Street, stated she la the nelghbor across the street who
hes celled the police; that thay have been tn the neighborhood for 28 years a~d tt Is
• ntce industrtal area and she felt walving the requlrement for cc~mpletety enclosing
tha property wtll really be ~et~imental because a recycitng oper~tion wlli be
brtnging in old Junk and she felt the property should be screen~d. She elso felt
there ~hauld be adequate parking rocxn hehind the existing bullding to the east for
employae pe~king.
Mr. Slegele expleined screening will be provided ecro~s the front of the property
dtrectlv opposlte Ms. Pletrok's hou~e ~nd that he will be wiliing to provide that
screening e~d the fencing along S~uth Streat and they cennot see tha prope~ty from
thelr house. Ne ~xplalned che front buildtnq witl be utlitzed for the Industrlal
laundry operation a~d that tt~e gates would be open during bustncss hours. but he Is
willtng to sc~een the gates.
TIiE PUOL I C HEARI NG WAS CLOSEO.
Raspond(ng to Chairman Tolar~s questlon~ Hr. Slec~ete steted the hours of operetlon
wlll be 7:OQ a.m. to 6:00 p.m.. scvan days a waek anJ answered Commisstoner King's
questton that the wal 1 wt Y I bc ecross the Front of the property froi-~ the al ley north
o~ Rose Street to che flrst metel building and then from Rose Street west to the
drtveway and that it wi11 be loceted where the extsting fence Is presently located.
Commlssione~ 1lerbst asked haw high the rubbish would be stacked and if fhere are sny
crsnes involv~d.
Mr. Siegele rep) ted the r~aterlal would be stacked 3 bales hi~h, (7-1/2 feei) and that
tha stacking wi~! be done on the ~orth end of the lot.
Conmisstoner flerbst stated he realires this site hss grendfether rtghts concerntng
industrta) usas end if thts perso~ was going Into the property without s amditio~a)
use permit, then these thtngs would not be requir~ed. He pointed out the petttioner
haa offere~ to conditlonally dedicate the righe-of-way to put tn xhe curbs and
gutters in the future and (f he hss ta do it nvw,it would elin+inate the parking and
he felt the parktng is needed for thts particulsr use. He steted he would Ilke to
see the condttional oedicetion made and a certain amaunt of landaceping provided in
the front of the wails and hoped at s anetime in the nea~ future, new bulldings wtll
be p~ovided. Ne stated recyciing fscillties ere needed (n the Clty of Anaheim and he
s~w no problem with thls use.
Commissioner Ktng stated he could se~ no dtfference in tfie vtew wtth a 6-foot ar an
$-foot htgh fence and thet he wouid go blong aith thc G-foot hlgh fcnce. Ne dsked
3/23/St
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ M~ncf~ 23~ 1981 81•1~6
haw the Commt~slon faels sbout ~latting the chainlink fence as it exists~ polntinq
out thn property is surrou~ded witl~ bulldings~ so walls are not necessa~y.
ACTION: Commisstoner Bushore offcred a motlo~~ seconded by Cortimissioner Herbst and
MO~~N CARRIED~ that tlia At~ahelm City Planning Commis~lon h~a reviewed the proposal
ta pormit a recyclin center and recre~tio~al vehtcle storage facllity in the ML
(Induatrtai, Limited~ Zone vrtth walve~s of minimum iandscaped setback~ maxlmum fence
height~ requlred enclosure of outdoc~r uses and mintmum numbe~ of parking spsces on a
rectengularly-sl~aped p~rce) of land conslsttng of app~oximately 3.6fi acres~ located
at the nc~rthwest corner of South Street end Rose Street (919 East South St~eet); and
does hereby approve the Negative Declaration from the requlrement to prep~re an
environmental impact report an the basis that there wouid be no significant
indlviduai or cumulattve edverse environmenta) impact due tc~ the aprroval of this
Negativo Declaretion s(nce th~ Anehelm General Plan designetes the subJect property
for gene~al industrl~) land uses commensurAte wlth the proposet; that no sensttive
envtronmental tmpacts ar~ lnvolved In tl~e prop~sal; that the Inttial Study submitted
by the petitioner tndlcates no signlflcent indivldual or cumulAtive adverse
enviro~mental (mpacts; and that the Negntive Declaration substanttatfng the foregot~g
findinys is on flle in tl.s City of Anehelm Planning Dcparcrr,~nt.
Comm(ssioner ~ushore affcreJ a motion~ scconded by Commissloner Nerbst and NOTI01~
CARRIED~ thdt walver (a) be granted on the basis Cha: the petttta~e~ has stlpulated
to c~ndttionally dedicate ~equlred rl~ht•of-wAy and hns ~ttpulated to provide the
proper lenciscaped setback when the prope~ty is developed in the future and sub,iect to
tl~e petitioner's stipulation ~o pravide a landscaped pianter in front of the wall
along South Street from abandoned Rose St~eet to withln 20 feet of the existing
bullciing; and granting walver (b) on the basis that the fcncc is exlsttng And denial
would deprtve subJect property of a privli~ge enjoyed oy other property 1n the same
zone and vlclntty and :~Ject to the petitioner's stlpuliotlon to provtde a G-foot
high block aall along the front of the property on South Street; and grenttng waiver
(c) on the basis thet the petitiancr has scipulated to provid~ slatting ln the
existing gates and on the besls th.et the existing bullding on edjacent propcrty to
the aest blocks the vlew that the remefnder of the property Is surrounded by other
industrial users who do not heve site screening and sub}ect to tho car-ditlon that
materials shall be stacked no higher than the E-foot high fence and on the basis that
denial would dep~ive subJect property of a prlvilege en~oyed by othe~ properties in
the same zone a~d viclnity and granting walver (d) on the basts that tfi e 40 spaces
proposed are adequate for the use as proposed.
Mr. Siegele stated thet he would like to make the prapcrty as ettr~ctive as possible
and will plant wiierever possibl~ tn front of the parktng lot and tn front of the
office buildtng.
Commissloner King asked Mr. Slegele if he wauld be w1111nq to repair the ~xtsting
damaged chsinlink fence and Mr. Siegele replted that he wnuld.
Commissloner Bushore offered Resolutton No. PC81-62 and moved fo~ its passage end
adoption that the Aneheim City Planning Commtssion does hereby grant Conditlo~al Use
Pe~mit No. 2187 for a p~rtod of on ryear~ subJect to review for possible extensions
of time, sub~act to the condittons that a specfai customer unloadtng shal) be
3/23/81
\ ~
M{NUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PI,ANNINC CONMISSION~ MARCH 23, iq81
81-177
detl~natad t~ ord~r to ke~p the custc~msrs from ~oaming throuqh the factlityi th~t the
pa~ktng spsc~s r~quired sh~ll b• nrrked and kept cle~r ~t all tims~ except fo~
cmployo~s o~ custa-»r v~hiclss and there sh~ll be nc~ automobile o~ materlel sto~a9e
In sald sp~cse; that the blacktop portio~ of the parking shslt be palnled with yellow
lines to designat~ that drivr lhrough a~e~ for customers and cuttomers sh~1) not be
allowed out of thase de:tgnatad drtve ereat except in the: pa~king and rec~eiving
areas; that the roadway shall bs maintalnecl et 20 fseL being keqt ciear at ail timea
to acconwrodate emergency vehtcle:; Lha~ the emplayee oniy area shal) be pasted ~s
such end tfiat no custonK,r wili be sllowed in those arees; that the prope~ty ~hell be
po=t~d to prohiblt bsre feet; chat no trucks~ cantaine n or other vehicles that
deltver~ haul or contatn t~ASh be pe rmitted to p~rk outside the perlmete~ of the
yard; that no msterlel shall be stacked higher than the extsting 6-foat htgh fance
and that the recre~tional vehicle parktng steils shell be marked and numbered; and
that any chsnges in the pla~s shall ba ,eviewed by the Pla~ning Comnission; and that
the employees ahall park in the de~tgnated 31 stalla at the romr of the property a~d
~ubJect to madified interdepartmental Committee reconm~ndatlona.
On roll ce11, the foregoing roaoiution was psssed by the folloaring vote:
AYES: COMMISSIQNERS: BARNES~ BOUAS, aU5110RE. FRY~ HERBST~ KING, TOLAR
NOE5: CONMIS510NER5: NONE
A9SENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Jsck 1~Ihite~ Assistant City A~torney~ prasented the written right to appeai th~
Planning Commisslon's dectsion within 2~ daya to the Glty Council.
Commissioner t~erbst left the rr~eting at 4:50 p.m. a~d did nat ~eturn.
3/23/81
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PIANNIN6 COM11iSSION~ MARCH 2j~ 1981 81•178
ITEM N0. 1;: EIR CATEGQRICAI EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 AND VAiIIAFICE N0. 32~3::
,.. ..~..._~_~_.~...._....~....,..... ._._..._.._.
Q1rHERS: YASIL~ AND DENISE KELEMEN~ 700 South Euclid Stre~t~ Mahcin+. CA 92802.
Property described as a rectanqulariy•shaped parce) of la~d consl~ting of
approximately G~Z00 square feet~ locsted ~t the sautheast corne~r of Alomar Avenue •nd
Euclid Street. P~oPerty p~esently clesstfled CO (COMMERCiAI~ OFFICE IW 0
PROFESStONAL) ZQNE.
VAAIANCE REQUEST: WAIVER OF PEaMITTCD NUMBER~ SIZE AND TYPE OF SIGNS TO PERMIT A
FREE~STAI~01 NG S IGN.
There was one person Indicating her presence in c-ppositlon to subject roquast~ and
aixhough the stoff repnrt wes not read~ it Is referred to end mede e part of the
minutes.
Veslle Kaleman~ awner~ stated he needs this sign for his businass and strted there
are already ~imtlar signs in the are~+ and felt he should have the same oppo~tunity te
advertise hIs business; that thc structs+re ~s a residenttal house end next door there
is the snme tYpe house with the ssme type sign and that ot~,er busln~sses i~ ciose
proximlty have the san~e sixe sign end tt~e uses to tha corner ~re etther commercial ur
profcssional and tha sign will r~ot be seen by the resi~ients.
pebbie M111er steted st~e ilvos Just east of subject property in ~ residential home
and asked if tho sign wauld bc par~llei wfth Euc11d.
Uean Sherer~ Assistant Plonner, expleined lie understancis the slgn wlll be
perpandlculer witl~ the Euclld Street right-of-+~ay so those driving north/south on
Euclld would be able to see the stgn.
Ms. Miller statcd if th~t t~ the case, then she would not be opposed, but had thouc~ht
the sign would bQ parallel with Eucltd.
Chairman Tolar polnteci out the locatfon of the sign o~ the plans.
Ms. Mllier asked if th~re Is any ordinanc~ pertaining to the hou~s of the night that
en illuminated sign can stay o~ end explair~ed 1t Is very bright In their residenttal
a~ea s~d noted th~ "incane tax" sign is iltuminated all ni~ht durtng tsx preparation
tlme.
Mr. IGeleman staced he would Iike t~ havc the slgn on ali niqht because it will not
disturb the residantial neighbors in enyway. Ne state~ maybe to save energy he would
turn the sign off from midnlght to 4 or 5 in the mornin9.
Ms. M(iler stated she did ~e*_ helieve the illuminat{on would bother her or her
husband~ but the tncome iax sign dosa and she thought thls sign mfght disturb thg
axher nelghbors. She asked if there ts a curfcw pertai~ing to the timing of the
illumination. Dean Sherer~ Assistant Pis~~w~r~ stated there are no restricti~ns.
Chalrma~ Tolar su9c~ested e c.omplatnt be mede to the Zoning Enforcement Offlcer and lf
the illumtnatio+~ violates the heaith~ safety and welfare of the cittze~s~ a conditlon
cou14 be imposed on the pcrmit.
3/23/81
I
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISStOH~ MARCH 23~ 198t g~,.~~9
Jack 1lhite~ Assiatant Ctty Attornay~ stated if the income tax operetlon is thare
under a conditlonal uae Qe~mtt, then tt can be revlawed and conditlons trt-poaed
limtting the hours for the stgning.
TNE PU~IIC NEARING WAS C40SED.
Commisslaner Barnaa etated she he~ e real problem with this request beceuse this
city ha= e sign ordinence an0 th~ Commtssion Is tr~ing to eliminate s(gns rather
than app roving mere siyns a~d It has been thair experience that stgna do not tncrease
buainess. She stated she did not feel sn adver~tsing speciality buslness such +~s
thta would need e sfgn this lArge because custorrx ~s are not driving by le~oking for
this type buslness. She stated she also felt the Iilumtnatlon of thla sign wili
affact the residents and she felt ihta large sign would be detrin+enta) ta the city.
Commisaloner Fry s~ated he w~uld not be tn favor of a 17-feot high sign and is a ffrm
belicve~ in monumental type stgns.
l~espondtng to Cc~mmtssloner 9ushore's questton~ Mr. ICelema~ stated he has been et this
locatlon since 1g75 and that there are a few othe~ slmllar adverCising speclaltty
operations in this area. He stated he has a shawroom and custome~s can come to hts
place of bustness and stated he elso sells business forms and felt it w(11 be useful
to thc community.
Commisstoner 9ushore stated thls is a unlqu~ bustness and the~e are so few thet
people fird them; that he wAnts to see the b~siness prosper but cannot support a stgn
thta large; that he raooynizes there are other stmilar signs in the area but they are
almost all pre-ex(sttng or do meet code. Ne stated if the Commisslon approves this
requeat then they would have to c!o it for ali the othe~ placex of buslness and then
the resid~nts will have tn be concerned. Ne stated he r+ould aupport a monument-type
slgn and he dld not think the stgn needs to be Illuminated sll night.
Mr. Kelem~ statcd ho -vould follow thQ Conmiss{on's suggestion and turn the s(gn off
at midnight. He st~ted he thinks it would be dfsc~~mi~ation ta denY his request because
his,neighbor has a sfgn, ~nd that h~ dtd nut think the residents will be dlsturbed
wtth thls sign. He stated he would be willing to restrtct the hours ~t nig~t. but
feels he needa the sign.
Commtssioner Bushore stated the Commiss'on is not trytng to dtscrimtnate agatnst
anyone and is tryi~g to consider the consequences up and davn the street. He
suggested the petitioner can be ~ather unique wtth a new beautiful monument sign that
would encou~age the nelghbors to buy a similar sign and that he could sell tham the
signs.
Mr. keleman stated he has the proposed sign in hts garage and the sign company did
not tell him he would need a permtt or that It does not meet code before he purchased
it,
Commissione~ 6ushore scated he would Itke to sea the ~titloner submit revtsed plans
becsuse he feels the tity's slgn ordinanee ts a good ordinsnce.
Mr. lGelemen presented photogrsphs of otl~er signs in the area a~d stateC again he
feela thi~ sign is necessary tn o~der for his business to survtv+e.
3/23/~t
t 1
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNIMG COMMISSION, MAItCH 23~ 1g81
J
$1•180
The Car~nt~sion brlefiy ~~scusse~ th~ ~ita of other sipns I~ the a~ae a~d Annika
Santalahti~ Assist~~t Dir~ctor for Zo~tn4i explainad tha limtts on thl• sign sre
because tht s bui l dl n~ 1~ a resl ds~tlal conven ton to con~~clal uses ~nd i f it were
in the CL (Commarci~l~ Llmited- Zon~~ the stgn could be ;AO squa~a feet~ but the CO
( Wma~erclai, Offtce and Protesslonai) Zon• does not permtt frae-standing 3tgns. Sha
•xplainad sh~ thou¢~t tho Burger King and De) Taco signs are probably approximstely
1 ~~ square feet.
Ms~ Millar stated ahe has tived there three years and Is not opqosed to the
petttloner having s sign; however~ she felt this ts qulte e large sign with e lot of
illuminatlon. She ststed the tex sarvtca offtce stgn dos~ bother them at night and
she lntonds ta do something about it.
Mr~ Kalenwn stated the street iights at thls locatton do not ~rork and he fslt this
sig~ wil) be Ah advantage to the area and potntcd out there hea been en i~c~ease I~
crtme i n the erea.
Chairman Tolar steted he Felt a sign ts neoded~ but the question Is the size and Mr.
Kelenu~n stated he wants e stgn the somo s{ze ss the tax ~fflce next door.
Oeen Sherer statad Vartance Nn. 291~ was a raquest to retaln an illegal sig~ at the
tax office next door and it was denied by the Planning Commtsslon~ but granted by tha
City Cuuncil on Ap~ll 2G, 1977.
Annika Santalahti explained tha tax office Is tn chG CL 2one and the subJect property
ts tn the CO Zons,
Commissione~ 6arnea steted she felt the sign ordinance should be upheld and the
Commission should deny the request ar-d then the petitione r esn appeal 2he dectsion to
the C i ty Counc I 1.
Commissi~ner Bushore stated the Clty Co ~ci) spproved the variance for the property
~ext dour snd it now becomes difflcult to ckny siMilar ~equests to tha neighbors
whlch w as e xsctly his conce~n. Ne stated the Commission hes ~ever granted such a
request but would prot~ably look favorably upon a different sign.
Mr. Kei ~an stated the Commission should put themselvas in his poyition and realize
his nelghbors have similar sized signs and steted he needs thts aign for his business
to survive. He stated things are cha~ging atl over Anahetm and tt.nes are changtng.
Commissioner Bushore stated tn order f~r the Commission to g~ant s variance. a
hardship pertaining to b~e property itself must be demonstratad snd there a~e ta
hardships in this case and approval wouid be an inJusttce to dthers which were denled
the same requests.
Oean Shere~ explatr~ed the Commtssion had denied the request for Varlance No. 2915 on
the basts that it would set an undesirabie precedent.
Jack White, Asst~tant Ctty Attorne~~ explatned the crfteria for grantinq aaivers as
noted on page 13-c of the staff ~epo~t.
It was noted the Ptarning Dlrector o~ his authorized represnntative has determined
that the proposed project falls Mithin the definitlon of C~ateg~rical Ex~emptions,
Ctass 3~ as defined in paragraph 2 of the City of Maheim Environmental Impact Report
Gut del ine~ and is~ therefare, c~ •~,~, ri cel ly exempt f rom Lha ~equi ~aaent to prepare a~ EI R.
3/23/8i
~ ~. ~ i
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMNiSS10N~ MARCW 2;, 1961 ~g~
AC_,TIONt CAmmtssloner Busho~e oRfe~ed R~solutton No. PC81•G3 and moved for ita
pass~ga end adopttan th~t the requsstad va~isnce la hereby denled on the bstts th~t
no h~rdship pertatning to the pro~,arty Its~lf wss demonstrated end app~oval could set
an undes I rab le preud~nt.
Ch~i~nrn Tolar esked if Mr. Kolen~n has constde~ed roductng the ~ize of ths sian a~d
Mr. Keiamsn replled he already has the stgn in his garage.
On roll csll~ the foregoin~ reaolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS; BARNES~ 80UAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ KING, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIQ`IERS; NONE
A9SENT: COMMISSIONERSt HERBST
Mr. Kelemsn aaked for hts photographs and It was noted eny informatton tubmtttnd
during the hsartng becomes e part of the file and Dean Sheror returned the duplicate
photoc~rephs to Mr. Keleman.
Jeck 4lhite~ Assistant City Attorney~ presented the written ~Ight to AppeAl the
Planning Commisslan's decision within 22 days ta the City Councit.
ITEM N0. 14; EtR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIOh•C1A55 ~ AND VARIANCE N0. 3204:
- -- -.....__ .
OM/NERS: RICHARO 8. AND NEVA E. McLEMORE, 17Z5 North Nolbrook Street, Anahelm~ CA
928~7. Prope~ty described as a re~tangulerly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approxlmetely 5020 squere feet~ 1725 North Holbroak Straet. PropertY t~resently
classified R~-500Q (RESIDENTIAL~ SINGLE•FAMILY) ZONE.
VARIANCE REQUEST: WP.IVER OF MAXIMUM LO'f COVERAGE TO CONSTRUCT A ROOM AODITION.
There was no one Indicattng their prasence in opposttton to subJect request, and
although the staff repo~t was not read~ it ts referred to end m~de a part of the
mtnutes.
Richard McLer-qre, owner~ wes present to answer any questions.
THE PUgLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
It was noted tha Pianning Director or his authorized repreaentative has determined
that the proposed proJect falls within the definition of Categerical Exempttons~
Ciass 5, as deftned in persgrap~ 2 of the C(ty of A~ahelm Enviro~menta) Impact Report
Guldeltnes and Is~ therefore~ cate~orically exempt fran the requirer~ nt to prepare an
EIR.
ACTION: Commisstoner King offered Resolutton No. PC$1-64 a~~d maved for tts p~ssage
en a ti~~ that the Anaheim City Pls~ning Commission does hereby gra~t Vsriance No.
3204 on the basi s thst dental woul d deprive sub ject property of a prt vi tege enjoyed
by other p roperties in the ssma zone and vtcinity, and subject to Interdepe~tmenta)
Commi t tea rewmmendat i ons .
On rol) call. the fo~egaing ~esolutian Nas passed by the folic,wtng vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 6ARNES~ BOUAS, BUSHOftE. FRY, KING, T(1LAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
A63f~IT: CONMISSIf?NERS: HERBST
~~za~B~
1!
t, p
i
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAIICM 23~ 1981 81-182
ITEM N0. 1
R~'IE~~ RECOMIMENDATIONS
Th• follawing Reports and Reaommendation• staft raports were prasented but not re~d:
A. CONDI*IQNAI USE PERMIT N0. 2A6 • Request for extenslon of time from D~.
~ ...........~.~
Nenry ~anemtesu ~a . ac~es ~ located at 9Ag South Dale Avenue.
ACTIOt~; Comml~sianer King offered a motton, seconded by Commissloner Bpues
an~OT10N CARRIEO (Commt~ttoner He~bst being absent), thet the Anaheim City
Pla~niny Wmmisslon does hereby grant a o~e-year extenslon of tlme for
Condl ti onai Use Perml t No. 2067 to expt re on Apri i i~ 1982.
9. VARIAMCE N0~ - Request for tr minetlon from Ruth Feuersteln Trust for
property •t outh drAOkhurst Street.
ACTION: Commissloner King offered Resolution PC81-65 and moved fo~ its
pa- s ege end adoptton that the Ansheim Ctty Planning Commissto~ does hereby
termt nete Var iana No. 3AWQ.
Qn roll calt, the foregoing resolutlon was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMNISSIONERS: DARNES~ BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ KING. TOLAR
NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST
C. VAR_IANCE N0. b29 ~ Request for terminst.lon from Ruth Feuerstein Trust for
property et~. ~+~South Brookhurst.
ACTIt'!J: Commlssioner King offered Resolutton Mc~. PC81-66 a~d moved for its
passe~ge and adoptton that tho Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
tarmtnate Variance No. G29.
On roll call. the foregoing resolution was passed by the folloMrtng vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES. 80UA5, BUSHOtiE. FRY~ KING, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST
0. CQNnITIQNAI USE PERMIT 1~6~ - Request for extension of time frnm Earl
M er. Nemsx Incorporate~-for 2.4 ecres~ loeated at 1$32 East Ball Rosd.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered a rtctlon, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
an Md~07lON CARRIEO (CommTssioner Herbst being absent), that the Maheim Ctty
Planning Commisston does hereby grant a one-yesr extcnsion of time for
Conditional Use Permtt No. 1969 t~ expire on April 9~ 1g82.
3/~3/81
. ~
\
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMNISSION~ MAaCW 2;~ 19$1 81-183
E. RM- Q00 CODE AMENDMENTS AND P4L1 CY DENS 1 TY BONUSES • On March ~, 1981 at the
o nt ty ou~c an ann ng c~rnn s~ ~n ~r .~ess lon ~ st~ff w~s di ~ected
tc~ prepare RM-3~~0 Code Amendmont and a Cou~ct 1 Pollcy on denslty bonuses as
reconxnended by tl ty Stsf f.
NO ACTION REQUIREO.
F. WAIVEa OF IIIILSIDE fRA01NC ORDI~IAt~CE TENTATI~/C NAP OF TRACT ~IO. 1f1994 -
Request by Kau~man R-~oed Nomea~ inc. ~r waiv~r o~ the requfrement of the
City of Aneheim Nillslde Grdding Ordlnance as it relates to the locatto~ af
sido lot Ilnes at the tc,p of slopcs within Trect No. 1~~?a4 located sauth of
Santa Anr Canya~ Road both ~est ~nd wcst af 11ei r Canycx~ Raed.
SubJect actlon was taken following the hoerinq for Item No. 7.
ACTION: Commisstoner Herbat nfferad ~ motton, secandod by Commlssloner Fry
end MOTION CARRICD~ zhst the Anaheim City Pi~nntng Commission does hereby
recammend to th~ C) ty Counci l thet 4lniver of Ht l istde Crading Ordinance b~
grented within Tract No. 1~98r+.
OTHER DISCUSSION:
Annt ka Ssntalahtl stated the Scen(c Corrldor Overley 7.one prohibics large equtpment
storage yards or uses such as cement or concrate processing plents end there have
bee~ several requests pertaining to the property awned by the Water District or Flood
Contro) District because nf the potentfal floodTng hazard by potentiai lessees. 5he
a~ ked i f the Commi s~ i on wou 1 d 1 i ke to sea an t~++endme~ t to the Code to cons 1 de r such
uscss under the Condltlonal Use Permit procedure.
It was the genera) consenus of the Commisston that they would like to review a
proposed amendmenC to the ordinance. Ms. Santal ahti replfed that staff would present
a report and pro~osod ordi nence for the Commi as i on's cons i derat ton .
AOJOUMINENT There being no further business~ Commissio~er ~'ry offered e motion~
seconded by Commissicx~er King and MOTION C1IRRIEO, that the meeting be
adjourned.
The meeting w~s adJaurned at 5:35 P.m•
Respectfully submttted~
.
~~~~%~ ~° .
Edith L. Narris~ Secretary
Anahelm City Pl~nning Commissian
ELH:Im
3/23/81